World Sea Power Guide

[ancientmariner]

This is the title of a reference book by David Wragg which gives historical data on Maritime power and up to date naval strengths of countries big and small. He is miffed by Britain's waning sea power caused by overuse of the term Peace Dividend. There is no dividend when there is minimal investment. The USA with 4 times UK's population has 12 Carriers while Britain has none and when her carriers come on stream they will be a quarter of the size of the standard US Carrier. Europe as a whole can only muster 3 small Carriers of different sorts.
It is interesting to compare our Military/Naval strength against countries of comparable size and GDP, like Finland and Denmark. Both spend multiples of our Defence budget. Wragg has a good pedigree. He is author of Jane's Air Forces of the World and World Air Power Guide.

[na grohmiti]

Great publication. Have seen earlier issues.
Given the miniscule amount Ireland spends on defence it is unforgivable that we have reduced defence spending year on year. At 0.5% of GDP,We spend the same on defence as Andorra, apparently. 2% should be the minimum. It has dropped from a high of 1.2% in 1990. What's worse is while reducing the budget, we have also closed the gap between wages and equipment spending from 10:2 to 6:3. If we had maintained the 1.2% spend, imagine what we would be capable of today?

[Laners]

I think the population of the U.S is a lot more than 4 times the UK's .

[hptmurphy]

THe SDSR in the UK argued that more capable multitask ships would carry out the same roles as a larger fleet of ships or various abilities, however this fails to take into effect that it reduces the amount of actual hulls in the water need for deployments in a world where the missions have become far more widespread and diversified and you now have ships doing taskings that are either well above their capability and thus costing more than they should or ships filling gaps that are way above the ability of units.

The UKRN in losing its airborne capacity has set itself back 10 years and while the ships are being built to rectify this its going to be at least another 5 years before they will be fully operational and its unlikely that will ever 'own' the aircraft deployed as the RAF will no doubt have first call.

The Spanish and Italians are hampered in the type of aircraft they can deploy due to the size of ships and the French need a second carrier and its doubtful if that will happen.

Our problem being that the larger part of the budget spend is on wages and pensions and until the budget for investment is removed from under this umbrella its not going to change.Again we operate too many units from far too many locations each requiring their own infrastructure to be cost effective.

The big but is if the DF were to agree to further reductions in location and structures that the savings made would be red circled for defence spending only.

[Sparky42]

Last time I checked, the CVF's are going to be about 65-70K tons when fully loaded, making them second only to the Nimitz/Ford class hulls. They will be larger I think than the last generation of conventional US Carriers for example. Now there's certainly questions about the selection of the B variant and the number of fighters that it will support in day to day operations but I'm fairly sure that's a different issue.

[ancientmariner]

I think the population of the U.S is a lot more than 4 times the UK's .

Your right, as of 2015 the USA is 325,127,000 and the UK is 61,000,000 plus a few million floaters. Even at one fifth USA population they should have at least TWO full sized carriers. Their current cut back has left them with crewing difficulties for front line ships. They are using Canadian and Australian personnel on loan. The USA has 0.5% of their population in the services. The UK has 0.26%, which is about the same as ourselves. We need to heed the Danish fleet and be aware how skills are lost and gained within a Fleet. Their submarine service died on the vine while the surface units multiplied.

[danno]

A more appropriate comparison might be wrt respective GDP/GNP.Most likely the UK spends more on public health & welfare.

[Jack Booted Man]

There is an argument that the % GDP/GNP is not a great indicator either, NATO recently stated an aspiration of 2% per country Defence Spend but even senior footballers like the UK could miss that target too. Some believe that the % can be hoofled ( to use a military term) ..... You could include the costs of your intelligence services to skew it or you might have a big picture spend like a nuclear deterrent so those that spend theirs on pure guns and ammo and pay their military little might have a more effective military force for a much lower % spend.

Kevin Myers has another thought provoking article on Defence in general today , he rightly points out in the end that Europe ain't spending either......

[ropebag]

THe SDSR in the UK argued that more capable multitask ships would carry out the same roles as a larger fleet of ships or various abilities, however this fails to take into effect that it reduces the amount of actual hulls in the water need for deployments in a world where the missions have become far more widespread and diversified and you now have ships doing taskings that are either well above their capability and thus costing more than they should or ships filling gaps that are way above the ability of units...

while there is, absolutely, a very good argument that one ship - however brilliant - can only be in one place at a time, there is a very good counter-argument: of the nearly 40 Frigates and Destroyers the RN sent to the Falklands in 1982, less than half a dozen of them were able to either defend themselves or the vessels they were with effectively against an air threat that was at least 10 years behind what the RN was supposed to be able to handle from the Soviets at the time.

to put that in perspective, 87% of the RN's escorts in 1982 had no place in an Air-Sea battle of the early 1970's. we need to bevery careful of have a navy built on hull numbers and the ability to burn well.

if you'd ask me if i'd like to see an RN with a dozen T45's and two dozen T26 i'd bite your hand off, even if it came at significant cost to the Army - but the truth is that a QE class carrier loaded for war - 36/40 F-35B and 4 Merlin ASAC - guarded by two T45's, three T26's and an Astute is reasonably safe from the attentions of every power on earth bar one.

[paul g]

The problem western navies have is the lack of a viable opponent, the russian navy is a shadow of its soviet past, while China is growing, the U.S. navy is still miles ahead. Iran, Syria and other rogue states really don't have naval forces and even if they do they are easily obliterated.

The simple fact is that western powers have a numerical and technological superiority over their rivals, that is far more pronounced than in land forces.

[danno]

In fairness when the components of the Falklands conquest fleet were being designed there was little risk of an air threat to units intended to be chasing Whiskeys etc in the Atlantic.

[DeV]

while there is, absolutely, a very good argument that one ship - however brilliant - can only be in one place at a time, there is a very good counter-argument: of the nearly 40 Frigates and Destroyers the RN sent to the Falklands in 1982, less than half a dozen of them were able to either defend themselves or the vessels they were with effectively against an air threat that was at least 10 years behind what the RN was supposed to be able to handle from the Soviets at the time.

to put that in perspective, 87% of the RN's escorts in 1982 had no place in an Air-Sea battle of the early 1970's. we need to bevery careful of have a navy built on hull numbers and the ability to burn well.

if you'd ask me if i'd like to see an RN with a dozen T45's and two dozen T26 i'd bite your hand off, even if it came at significant cost to the Army - but the truth is that a QE class carrier loaded for war - 36/40 F-35B and 4 Merlin ASAC - guarded by two T45's, three T26's and an Astute is reasonably safe from the attentions of every power on earth bar one.

Except that will be:
50% of the carrier fleet
33% of the Type 45 fleet
23% of the Type 26 fleet
14% of the Astute fleet

Add an amphibious task group to be protected (that could possibly go in a number of waves (each in need of protection)), plus replenishment groups that need protecting, standing commitments, small groups of vessels having independent ops (eg NGS to a raid). You have a major issue (before you take damage and normal maintenance into account).

[na grohmiti]

The problem western navies have is the lack of a viable opponent, the russian navy is a shadow of its soviet past, while China is growing, the U.S. navy is still miles ahead. Iran, Syria and other rogue states really don't have naval forces and even if they do they are easily obliterated.

The simple fact is that western powers have a numerical and technological superiority over their rivals, that is far more pronounced than in land forces.

But is it appropriate for the actual threat these vessels will face in their lifetime? A state of the art US Aegis ship was put out of commission for over 3 years by terrorists armed only with an inflatable boat full of explosives.
Israel suffered at the hands of Hezb'allah during the 2006 Lebanon war when an anti ship missile was launched at one of their more modern corvettes, and its crew failed to operate the ships anti missile defences, leaving them on standby to save energy.
The RN has almost lost a number of vessels to accidental ingress of water caused by human error! HMS Endurance, HMS Nottingham and almost one RN sub every two years since 2000.

[ropebag]

...You have a major issue (before you take damage and normal maintenance into account).

entirely true, however in any situation serious enough to warrant parking a carrier with a full F-35 load and an amphipious task group off someones coast, we're also not going to be fcuking about doing anti-piracy patrols or putting ships into refit/maintainence unless they've got holes in them you drive a car through.

the situation is not ideal, or within a mile of ideal - ideal would be 4 carriers each with half a dozen escorts, two amphibious task groups plus escorts, another dozen T26+'s for independant operations and enough SSN's to make anyone not in NATO scared to run a bath, let alone put a ship to sea. sadly however, i'm not PM...

[Galloglass]

I think the USA spend on military is a tad Over the Top and frankly a threat to everyone including the good ol' USA itself.