Iran escalation?

Rasczak

Defence spending needs to be sustainable.  We can't spend 100% of GDP on defence because we would have no cash for anything else.  The Defence cuts in 2010 were savage but, in financial terms, were necessary to make things sustainable.  The key flaw was what was cut and the re-configuration towards land centric forces to stem the Afghanistan situation.  The long term consequences that have flowed, and will flow, from it in the years ahead threaten to be severe.  This Iran crisis, if it continues to escalate, will have huge consequences for people living in this island - it will push up fuel prices and the cost of living.  It will destabilise the Middle East compounding these issues even more and threatening British overseas trade.  It may require costly military intervention costing the taxpayer billions of pounds.  If we had a sizeable military presence now, this would act as a deterrent should diplomacy fail.  Of course we don't have sufficient suitable assets to deploy top protect shipping as it goes through the straits, so our only hope now is a coalition.  Mixed messages coming out on that as many nations might not want to shackle themselves to a hawkish US Government.

That's what Strategic Defence and Security Reviews do Sonic.  They make predictions with varying degrees of success.  For all its flaws, the 2010 SDSR understood the direction of travel even if it needed to resolve Afghanistan first.  SDSR 2015 has also gone down well setting the RAF and RN up for enhanced maritime focused operations.  The key is now SDSR 2020 to re-balance towards globally deployable forces that can secure and promote the strategic aims of the UK whilst still being affordable and useable.

The carriers are a different concept.  We have carriers because, after the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will conduct interventions using air power rather than ground troops.  Libya was a precursor for that.  And, whilst that has hardly been a huge success story, it was a sustainable intervention because no British Servicemen died and accordingly the politicians felt safe ordering the action.  I suspect if the Iran situation does escalate, HMS Queen Elizabeth will join the US forces in the Arabian Sea ready to implement this doctrinal concept.  But that is separate and distinct from protecting shipping as it goes through the straits  - which is why the RAF and RN now need a much bigger share of the defence pie.

Trollslayer

Also the Queen Elizabeth is designed to be able to perform more roles than supporting aircraft.

Rasczak

Yes it is fairly versatile - although HMS Prince of Wales is better as that is being properly fitted out for an improved amphibious role (HMS Queen Elizabeth will also be adapted in its first extended refit period).

IronGiant

...as in, be a submarine?  

Trollslayer

Supporting medical treatment where natural disaster occur is one real example.
Able to supply limited power to land facilities such as hospitals when the grid has failed is another.

Rasczak

Yes, it can certainly do those.  Although on the medical side the Naval Service does have a dedicated ship for that, RFA Argus, which was recently used during the Sierra Leone Ebola campaign.  If such an operation was repeated, pairing a Carrier would vastly increase rotary wing capacity and the slickness of the whole operation.

I suspect both carriers will get extensive use over the decades ahead as our main intervention force.  Must be quite an exciting time to be a Naval aviator and part of me wishes I was still serving (and young enough to be serving ).

Trollslayer

Thanks for the time you did serve.

Sonic67

Err yes, nice tautology. If do spend all on our money on defence then there isn't money for anything else. Well done.
Afghanistan was a Nato commitment. We are in Nato. No different to meeting a deployment in Eastern Europe. As a member we need to be in coalitions, work with partners. If you are in Afghanistan you need land forces. No different to being in Eastern Europe. Or are you saying we shouldn't meet commitments? Afghanistan was used as a training ground for terrorism. Internationally it was decided the country should be turned around and police itself. That meant troops to train the Afghanis.
Nope. We have funded our biggest carriers ever. Fitted them with our most modern aircraft. Ordered eight type 26's. Replacing Trident submarines. Replaced Tornado with Typhoon. Unveiled Tempest. Secured HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark.

We still need land forces.

Russia begins biggest war games in years

Russia has launched its biggest military exercise since the Cold War, involving about 300,000 service personnel, in eastern Siberia.

China is sending 3,200 troops to take part in "Vostok-2018", with many Chinese armoured vehicles and aircraft. Mongolia is also sending some units.

The last Russian exercise of similar scale was in 1981, during the Cold War, but Vostok-2018 involves more troops.

The Russian defence ministry says 36,000 tanks, armoured personnel carriers and armoured infantry vehicles will take part in Vostok-2018, from 11 to 17 September, along with more than 1,000 aircraft. Vostok is Russian for east.

The exercise will be spread across five army training grounds, four airbases and areas in the Sea of Japan, Bering Straits and Sea of Okhotsk. Up to 80 naval vessels will take part, from two Russian fleets.
If. You want to spend all our budget on one scenario? If Russia annexes Eastern Europe what then? What about China, North Korea? Africa? We send people all over the planet.
I've spent literally years in the middle east. Either we have sent troops, fought, or trained troops there. Not a good example.
As opposed to you, Rasczak, who tends to predict and be wrong and ever since you've first posted had a major problem with the army for some reason.
Considering we did without a fixed wing carrier at all for ten years that suggests we don't need them.
Wrong on numerous levels. We contributed land based fixed wing aircraft and army rotary wing aircraft operating from HMS Ocean. So if you are using it as an example then we don't need fixed wing carriers at all.
Which means you want to use armed forces for one situation. Against your soundbite of "balanced forces." Or are you proposing not meeting global commitments?

Sonic67

You can still do that with helicopter carriers, they are more suitable and they are cheaper and less to risk. If you are doing that you are using helicopters.

Helicopters have a short range. You can mitigate the short range by parking the ship closer but you don't want to risk something like a major carrier. A large carrier you want to keep in the open ocean where you can see threats.

And a large carrier doing that can't be being used somewhere else. If the purpose is to be a deterrent to major powers it needs to be vaguely near them, not dragged away.

Why your CVF should not moonlight as your LPH | Save the Royal Navy

Using the 65,000 ton fleet flagship, the sole available carrier as an LPH would expose her to increased risk. The loss or even damage to the ship would probably end the operation, be highly symbolic and politically unacceptable. The loss of a smaller LPH like HMS Ocean would still be a disaster but a political risk that could be contemplated. Historically the RN accepted it must sometimes lose ships to win wars.

Most importantly, large high-value ships try to keep as far away as practically possible from the threat of land-based aircraft and missiles and even small boat swarms or mines. It is also far easier to defend a ship against submarines in the deep ocean than in the more acoustically challenging littoral environment where small conventional submarines have a great advantage.

Trollslayer

You missed the point.
The Queen Elisabeth can be useful in peace as well as war.
Also as Rasczak pointed out, the QE can be used with rotary wing aircraft (helicopters) which you missed.
As with anything else, a risk/benefit analysis would be carried out before making a decision.