Iran escalation?

Sonic67

Yep, and a helicopter carrier can be useful in peace as well as war. More useful in fact.
Of course it can, and so can a helicopter carrier.

And my mate was deployed:

See him at 1.14.

Aid Boss Joins British Troops Battling Ebola

And you aren't risking a major carrier. Part of the reason for having a large UK carrier was it could be based in the med, so a large US carrier that was deployed there could then be used elsewhere. If you are using a large carrier as a large deterrent and a force in being you can't take it away to help with a third world country.

A large carrier tends to need a large group with it as it's a large asset. It and it's group is a large stick to worry others. If you take it away you are losing the large deterrent.

Trollslayer

Assuming you don't need the deterrent at that time.
If the need arises then it changes role.

Rasczak

The carriers are going to be configured with one as Carrier Strike (primarily F35B) and one as amphibious (primarily rotary), so effectively we will have a helicopter carrier stand fast periods where one of the carriers is in deep refit.  A third carrier - exclusively for helicopters - would be a folly as it would be a new class of ship that would require its own support system.  Very expensive.  Better to have as few classes of ship as possible as commonality decreases costs and improves operational capability.

Force protection was not a problem for Argus during the Ebola campaign.

Rasczak

It is noteworthy that most other NATO nations got through Afghanistan without mucking up the balance of their forces.

Yes we have, but we need much, much more.  We need Maritime Patrol Aircraft urgently - these are coming but not enough.  We need a dozen or so more Frigates or other patrol craft.  We need third tranche of F35 (be that A or B variants).  We need new forward operating bases in the Pacific.  We need new patrol boats and new mine counter measure options.  We need new surveillance aircraft and drones.  We need new heavy lift replacements (the C17s are knackered).

Of course we do.  We need large, well equipped ground forces that are capable of theatre entry and sustained operations.  I am not convinced we need a regular land force quite as large as we have though.  The thing is it takes a decade from the procurement decision to get a ship or new combat aircraft system operational.  Take F35B for example.  Orders in 2010 and the first operational sorties was this year.  By contrast, infantry can be generated much faster if built around an existing body/formation - 1914 and 1939 being prime examples.  Technical branches of the Army are, of course, a different matter.

And that is the beauty of the maritime solution - it is flexible.

You quoted me from years ago and I was spot on the money.  The words on the radio today were almost a carbon clone of what I wrote back in 2010/2012!

Sonic67

HMS Ocean was built to be cheap, a one off and losing or risking a large carrier for anything is massively expensive.
1. And it meant not using a capital ship.
2. The ship was not a major deterrent and not likely to be desperately needed for potential warfighting elsewhere.
3. The ship used was good enough for the role.

Most people are deployed by commercial aircraft and commercial flights. My mate flew there by a commercial aircraft. See the first few seconds of the link above.

Well you are using the "Ebola" situation as an example.

Yes you could use a major carrier for fighting a virus in a country. Why? Why not just fly people there on a plane to an airport as my mate did?

If you need to go deep in country, use some 4x4s. Hire them, or send them on a ship, if you can't hire them.

Yes, you might need some helicopters, so again send them on a ship, or hire them, or whatever else. You don't need a huge amount of them. Most of the job he did was training the locals and they then did it. He wasn't running around looking like an extra from "Outbreak."

It's far easier to fly people from one place to another by a commercial aircraft and send equipment by a container ship or similar. It was what we did for Bosnia, Gulf War One, Iraq, Afghan etc. In fact the only time I can think was remotely like something from a war film was boarding a Herc in the desert in GW1 to move position, my tank moved by a tank transporter and caught up with me later, and there was use of a helicopter in Afghan. The helicopter for that didn't get there by an aircraft carrier.

You could use a massive aircraft carrier in the same way you can hunt deer with a machine gun, or fish with grenades, bit of overkill though.

Rasczak

HMS Ocean was ordered at a time when the Navy was under intense scrutiny and people were questioning whether capital ships were affordable.  It was (relatively) cheap to make but cost a lot in the long term both operationally (due to the slow speed) and due to the bespoke parts that were incompatible with other classes of ship.  The lessons learnt meant a very different approach was taken with capital warships that followed such as the Albion and Queen Elizabeth classes.

There was no submarine threat when dealing with Ebola off Sierra Leon.  A capital ship would have been used had one been available but RFA Argus, as the standing medical role 3 facility, was always going to be front and centre.  I have no doubt that had a carrier been available, and it was deemed operationally useful, it would have been deployed in support.  Unfortunately HMS Ocean, as sole carrier during that period, would have had other commitments.

As with all operations, helicopters add speed and maneuverability to the mix.

I don't disagree.  But military airlift also provides options and an organic capability.  One that we have used in every theatre we have fought in since World War II I might add!

Sonic67

And noteworthy that we didn't.
And you think we can fund all that by not buying some body armour years ago?
I noticed.
The same with any other equipment.
You are using conscripts as an example. They were low quality bullet catchers where numbers were large numbers were important.

To train a professional soldier takes six months of training to get them to the level of being "fresh from the factory" and they are then still entirely inexperienced.

How long would you say it took you to be good at your job?

Years?

Or would you say anyone can learn your job in a few weeks?

This is no different. It takes years to be good at a job, any job, a professional soldier definitely so.

A modern army isn't like WWII where you do a bit of square bashing and fire a rifle.

It involves knowing a long list of technical equipment. Pretty much doing everything today, involves thousands of pounds worth of computerised equipment.

You honestly don't know the difference?
And so is the army. Can you deploy a ship to a jungle? Temperate? Artic? Anywhere that isn't, I don't know, water?
And still wrong!

Rasczak

No of course not.  We need a full and honest appraisal of what capabilities we need.  I think that needs to be tackled urgently in the SDSR 2020.

We are not talking about training in a few weeks but the pipeline is certainly quicker than training pilots/aircrew or technical operators onboard ships and submarines.  It is worth noting the 'civilian armies' of 1918 and 1944/45 have been the most effective army we have ever had.

Only with host nation support.  Don't get me wrong, the Army has an important role in stabilization but - as we have seen from Libya and Op Shader (Syria/Iraq) - this is now in a training/support role rather than war fighting or insurgency suppression.  If the Shader model holds, it is clear that air assets are the primary war fighting arm going forward with the Navy and Army in support.

Well, the comments came from General Richards so I am quite content.

Sonic67

It was built to last twenty years, it lasted twenty years. The fact we lasted ten years without a fixed wing aircraft carrier means we can ask whether we need one at all.
Which means the ship you are using to stand in for a large US carrier or to be a major deterrent is tied up with doing something of little military use.
And our sole major aircraft carrier wouldn't? You don't think our largest carrier wouldn't be busy when Ocean was?

If we want to do stuff like this, why not just build a new hospital ship? The QE class cost over £6 billion.

How much was HMS Ocean? You can use Google if you like.
so does a ****ing great aircraft carrier though that tends to be better used elsewhere.

Anything can carry a helicopter. Even a container ship.

Rasczak

The last time we used a container ship as an aircraft carrier it did not end well:
                                                                                                                                               
(Atlantic Conveyor, 1982)

Notwithstanding enemy attacks, use of aviation assets off non-bespoke platforms is always a challenge.  Lack of hangar facilities, embarked stores, fueling facilities, hardened decks with tie down points, rough weather land grapples (for rotary wing), ammunition points and fitted magazines (with sprays etc), understood approach vectors/masthead hazards, fitted homing and safety beacons, ship radar fit, crash on deck teams with associated firefighting equipments, lifeboat options, a ship fast enough to get wind over deck right, fitted stabilizers etc etc are all safety critical challenges.

No, helicopters on commercial ships might sound great in action movies and internet forums, but the reality is a lot more complex.  Which is why countries tend to build dedicated warships for such tasks!  Even then we don't always get it right - when the first Merlin landed on a Type 23 frigate's helicopter deck it proved to heavy and the weight cracked the structure! Whoops!   Even on HMS Queen Elizabeth they have had to put in hardened patches due to the more powerful than anticipated downward blast of the F35B engines!