£20m of contracts signed for carriers

HAVE YOUR SAY

From above article:

"Sensors and other equipment to enable Air Traffic Control and tactical operations will be mounted to the pole masts..."

Why are the planned carriers not designed to have proper (sensors)high-capability radars- instead of the cheap, highly limited in functionality, soon to-be-obsolescent types presently planned?
Such radars are a basic prerequisite to aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships and similar vessels 'being enabled' to carry out the types of tactical operations* that can reasonably be expected as duties during the next 2-3 decades...
(* alone and as part of a larger UK or multi-national task force...)
Without proper radars, the planned carriers will be unable to operate missile-based, anti airborne threat ship self-defence systems... which explains why such ship self-defence systems are not planned to be fitted to the planned carriers...
If France can retrofit its aircraft carriers with anti airborne threat missile systems, and if every other country on earth that operates aircraft carriers- such as the US, Italy, Japan, India and even Brazil fit their carriers with technologically up-to-date anti airborne threat missile systems- why isn't the UK Labour govt making sure that the planned new carriers are fitted with the sensors, communications and weapons systems sufficient to enable the planned carriers to operate missile-based ship self-defence systems?
"MBDA'S SAAM-FR NAVAL AIR DEFENCE SYSTEM SUCCESSFULLY CARRIES OUT FIRST SALVO FIRING", 30_05-2005:
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/newsFO_complet.php?lang=IT&news_id=138
It ought to be noted:
- the above Aster-15 (also known as 'Sea Viper') anti airborne threat missile test firing was from France's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier AND
- that the UK's presently in-service aircraft carriers were stripped of their obsolescent 'Sea Dart' anti airborne threat (AAW) missile systems in the late 1990's AND
- that the UK Labour govt refused to fund a replacement AAW system to be fitted 1998-2010.. AND
- in order to save money, the planned aircraft carriers won't have any anti airborne threat missile systems whatsoever...
Why were the Sea Dart anti airborne threat missile systems not replaced with up-to-date systems when these systems were removed from the RN's carriers in the late 1990's- a time when the existence and highly lethal capabilities of the then new- now prevalent worldwide- SS-N-27 were well known among the MoD and senior govt officials?"
Does not having anti airborne threat missile systems put the RN's carriers, their service personnel and the UK's interests generally- at high risk?"
Why are the UK's new aircraft carriers designed and being built without anti airborne threat missile systems and the radars required to operate these weapons?"
Considering that anti airborne threat missile systems are integral to aircraft carriers of all sizes belonging to ALL other countries' navies world-wide, why isn't the UK govt allowing the UK's new carriers to be fitted with these weapons and the (costly) radars required to operate them?"
Why are the UK's planned new aircraft carriers designed and being built WITHOUT ARMOUR and WITHOUT ARMOURED BULKHEADS?"
Why do ALL of the US Navy's in-service 'big deck' Nimitz and Improved Nimitz class aircraft carriers as well as the LHA and LHD classes of ‘medium sized aircraft carriers’ have armour and armoured bulkheads?" and
WHY ARE THESE VESSELS FITTED COMPREHENSIVELY WITH ANTI AIRBORNE THREAT MISSILE SYSTEMS & THE ADVANCED RADARS + COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS REQUIRED TO OPERATE THEM?"
- http://www.military-today.com/navy/improved_nimitz_class.htm -
Why are the US's newest 'big deck' carriers- such as the recently commissioned G Bush and the undergoing-design "Gerald Ford" class- built with extensive amounts of armour and fitted with armoured bulkheads and/or being designed to be fitted extensively with armour and with armoured bulkheads?"
Why are the US's newest 'big deck' carriers- such as the recently commissioned G Bush and the undergoing design Gerald Ford class built with and/or designed to be fitted with anti airborne threat missile systems and the advanced radars required to operate these systems?"

http://www.navy.mil/local/lhd8/ -
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&ct=4&tid=400 -
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/amphibiousassault/lhd1Wasp.html -
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/navy/amphibiousassault/lha1tarawa.html -
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lhx.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uss-theodore-roosevelt-headed-into-midlife-overhaul-02810/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvn-78-specs.htm -

Why are all of the US Navy's front line surface combatants- such as aircraft carriers, Amphibious Assault ships, Destroyers (and even many attack subs)- fitted with the sensors and communications equipment required for "Cooperative Engagement Capability" (CEC)?
Why aren't any of the UK's surface combatants fitted with the sensors and communications equipment required for Cooperative Engagement Capability?"
Why, in 2004/2005 did Labour 'guillotine' previous commitments to fund the fitting of ALL of the UK's surface combatants AND new vessels- such as the planned aircraft carriers and Type-45 Destroyers- with the sensors and communications equipment required for Cooperative Engagement Capability?"
CEC is vital for warships to share theatre data- especially important when threats such as supersonic sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM's) and aircraft- may be approaching from 'over the horizon' (farther out than 20 miles) flying low, and thus not detectable by a Type-45 until 'no longer over the horizon' (less than 20 miles out) and less than 1 minute away...

If Type-45's (or any under-attack ship) cannot detect- and take actions to deal with- airborne threats until they are closer than 20-miles out, their reaction time is very dangerously limited and ships in their squadron that are farther away than 4 or 5 miles (in the direction of the incoming threat) are, in effect, sitting ducks to foes with a modicum of common sense and only moderately up-to-date weapons....
It would be an unheard of and suicidal strategy for RN squadrons involved in a conflict situation to have all of the squadron's vessels remaining within 4 miles of each other...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/ -

"The Cruise Missile Challenge: Designing a Defense Against Asymmetric Threats"' 2007:

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/522.pdf -

"... The optimal sensor platform for cruise missile detection, therefore, will be air-based. By looking down on the Earth, elevated sensors can spot a cruise missile from many angles, unlike ground-based (and sea-surface platform-based) radars which may only see the nose.

"Even more importantly, air-based sensors can see over any obstructing terrain (such as high waves & sea swells) that might otherwise be used to conceal a cruise missile’s flight path. An air-based sensor platform can also survey a wider area than a ground system, since it can see farther over the Earth’s horizon than is possible from ground-level surveillance platforms.

"... the U.S. Navy's E-2D Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/

"are tasked with:
"1) detecting and tracking airborne threats at the greatest possible distances, AND
"2) with directing combat aircraft and anti-air (missile & radar guided machine-gun- rvl) batteries to deal with these air threats. The great advantage of... AEW aircraft is that they are already capable against (anti-ship) cruise missiles, an ability that only grows with time and upgrades...."

The E-2D Hawkeye is not operable from the UK's current and its planned new 'big deck' aircraft carriers as all ship deployed E-2D Hawkeye aircraft require launch catapults...
The UK's current aircraft carriers don't have launch catapults and- in a dangerously short-sighted Labour govt money saving scheme- the planned new 'big deck' aircraft carriers are not being built with aircraft-launch catapults...
For over 3 decades ship-deployed AWACS aircraft have been accepted by naval strategists as a vital requirement for any country wishing to have a "first tier" navy.
In order to be able to reasonably effectively conduct other than home-country coastal/littoral patrol operations, shipborne AWACS aircraft are needed for navies/squadrons/naval task-forces to prosecute missions & to defend against targets in all 4 main warfare spheres: sea-surface based; sub sea-surface based; air-based; & land-based.
Fixed-wing AWACS aircraft are indispensable for: "beyond visual horizon" detection & identification of possible incoming threats; weapons control; weapons-targeting & for legitimate Theatre Air Defence.
Imagine a scenario where RN carriers (& the whole of the rest of the Royal Navy!!) had to be 'protected' by French carriers.... with their fixed-wing AWACS aircraft... aircraft that the RN's planned new (& its present) carriers won't be/are not capable of using...
A good example of these types of aircraft can be found at
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jni/jni091020_1_n.shtml

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/idr/idr080611_1_n.shtml :

"... In 1982 the Falklands conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without (AWACS) AEW support... The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, & directly contributed to the loss of several ships...."
Would the submarine-deployed weapons system described at the link below take-out a copter-borne AWACS or a high-flying, comparatively fast, fixed-wing aircraft-borne AWACS easier??:
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/idr/idr080612_1_n.shtml
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jni/jni090821_1_n.shtml
Should govt policy be to direct tax-payer funds going towards the building of aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy that are fitted and equipped in such a manner to enable the vessels' competent performance against modern types of threats and to enable the RN and the UK to continue its/their leading, respected roles on the world stage??
... or should govt policy be to direct tax-payer funds going towards the building of aircraft carriers that- due to govt-imposed limitations- fitted and equipped to operate as impotent, incompetent, grievously vulnerable duds, in effect- tax-payer-funded 'make-work-project' 'vote purchasing schemes'??
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

I just hope that the next government does not see fit to cancel or sell off this project to appease some very backward thinking and forgetful people in the RAF and Army.
As yet the Tories have failed to back QE2 or her sister which is remarkably worrying especially in light of the fact that Obama's anti-British Democrat administration would be very happy to leave us high and dry if we find ourselves trying to save our overseas territories, or our Allies, from a spot of bother again.
These ships are vital to the UK's national and international defence and our standing on the world stage.
The "global mobile RAF mk2" is not the answer. Mk1 singularly failed when called upon and Mk2 has even less kit and will soon only be available 9-5 Monday to Friday at the rate they're losing assets to age and cost(and blindly spending their share of the ever shrinking defence budget).
The RAF is on a mission to be a Typhoon only force although it is already cannibalising some of them! The Typhoon for all its strong points is not a global strike aircraft.
Just have to keep our fingers crossed that Dr Fox is not a mug and easily led like Mr Nott, or Major Healy.
Roll on the final assembly, launch and in service dates. Can't happen soon enough.
Alistair - London