British aircraft carrier ‘on standby’ if tensions with Russia rise

The Sun never set so too speak everyone enjoyed sundowners and a lovely tan

Hi Paul, I fear you significantly underestimate Putin, and fear of ‘casualties’ is a distinctly Western weakness, not a Russian one.

I don’t think so.

The Russians were actually very afraid of RN post ’82 as RN kept fighting after taking hits even with such a ridiculously extended supply line.

Putin is not in a position where the population will withstand many body bags.

I don’t disagree with the respect our forces instilled in the Soviet Union Post ’82, and I really want to be clear that I’ll never critise the skill of our armed forces either. However i will take issue on the bodybags element, firstly I seriously question how informed we really believe the citizenry to be (watch RT for a a bit and you’ll get a very interesting idea), mix into that the lack of opposition TV and politicians.

I do have good Russian contacts both in London abs in Russia from the perestroika era.

They are all pretty clear the Putin isn’t really that popular but the lack of viable alternatives is the main issue. The thing that is eroding Putin’s ‘popularity’ is the sliding living standards and corruption.

I’d agree on the sliding standards and corruption, and particularly on lack of alternatives, but that rather underlines the point that Putin domestically is still in a strong place, despite increasing headwinds. An international action (Ukraine) is risky but ‘might’ either solidify said domestic position and achieve a genuine desire to increase Russian influence regionally….or completely backfire. But inaction is definitely not an option for him.
What are you thoughts?

until russia finally kicks off its paranoia of the west things will never change russia has always looked westwards as the way threats to her will be.no matter who is in charge the idiology will stay the same.

Yes Gorbachev was always very clear the falklands really shocked the leadership of the USSR and played into their view of the west. They had to reconsider and plan that the U.K. and RN would not give an inch and since we sit across the Atlantic access points as well as being a nuclear power it would be a pill they could not really swallow.

Exactly

they stopped worrying when they saw how much of the R.N was going to be left later.

You have to ask why if Putin really wanted to invade Ukraine, has he not done it already? Why give the west the opportunity to pour weapons that will be used to kill Russian troops into Ukraine? He is trying to make a point in the only way he thinks he can.
Any invasion would result in sanction that would destroy Russia’s economy and would have a deep impact on the Russian people. In addition a new Cold War would spring up and as in the last one, Russia would not have the money to keep up – so history would effectively repeat itself. In reality, he has far too much to loose……

GET/HAVE YOUR DUCKS IN A ROW | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

I think your right, I hope your right.

I hope you’re right but I’m not sure that Putin is entirely all there, particularly with the 30th anniversary of Russia’s effective collapse, as he sees it .
Our problem is that this is the first time that we may have to provide the POW for use and we are effectively sending a ship with hardly a fighter to it’s name if any and that is unable to defend itself, never mind strike back.
Ten years plus of indecision equals non event.

the warsaw pact fell apart for two reasons firstly the soviet union had ceased to exist and secondly, its apalling economical situation meant it couldn’t keep in touch with the wests technology. most soviet navy assets were obsolete, in poor condition or just plain falling apart. that situation is similar to todays, the numerical stats point the russian way but much of the russiann military is conscripted somewhat. and against professional organisations might not be anywhere as scary as might be imagined i’m disturbed at the deafening noise from china whose own political ambitions in the east may yet present themselves on the world stage. who does china align with really? its not clear if a shooting match erupted in the westwould north korea go for the south? would china miss the chance to go for tiawan? would india and pakistan really go at it over the hindu kush(kashmir? the chances of an globe wide war is scary. pray i’m totally wrong.

There would be no point in it’s entering the Black Sea Andy. That’s the tragedy of it. It couldn’t do anything other than provide the Russians with a target if it did.

A carrier for a war with Russia is pretty pointless, as there is a whole load of land based air bases near by, but I guess it does give a message to our allies and a nice press story for our media.

Hi Steve,

Yup, the message is the point. Plus we shouldn’t forget that the Russians are planning an exercise somewhere in the Western Approaches in April (although I did see a post that it had moved outside of the Irish EEZ).

Cheers CR

Thanks for reminding me. I hear that hotel has plenty of regular guests.

Yeh, lots of coming and going about one every 2 to 5 minutes on a busy day 🙂

Cheers CR

Kusnetzov was build in Ukraine

Hi Bob,

I should have said ‘non Black Sea Countries’. Non Black Sea Countries are limited to 30,000 tons in total and must leave within 21 days. The treaty is the Montreau Convention. Thus Russia as a Black Sea Country can build and deploy whatever it likes into the Black Sea.

When the Ukraine sold its carrier to the Chinese on the face of it, it broke the rules as it weighed in at 43,000 tons (ish) light and over 50,000tons standard. However, my understanding is that the convention is applied at the Bosphorus and effectively policed by Turkey, so the civilian ownership probably sufficiently confused the issue and allowed Turkey the opportunity to avoid a diplomaic ‘spat’ with China.

As such my comment above regarding the Chinese carrier was broadly correct, if rather in complete.

Cheers CR

But the ex-carrier was not in operational condition so it was a stripped hulk that was not a commissioned man-of-war? It had zero offensive or defensive capability. It was not in that state much more controversial that a bulk grain carrier.

It was not even able to make it own way needing tugs etc.

Mind you that doesn’t differentiate it from other Russian warships…..

Hi Supportive Bloke,

Indeed, yet another reason for the rules to be ‘bent’ perhaps.

Given she (or ‘he’ as the Russians call their ships) is now operational with the PLAN just goes to show how international agreement, conventions and treaties are being undermined.

Non of which bodes well for the future.

Cheers CR

Depends on the INCO terms. If ownership passed to China after transitting the straight it was still a Black sea state owned ship.

Hi Chariot, the USSR got around that by strapping huge numbers of anti ship missiles to their aviation ships/carriers and calling them cruisers.

Hi Jonathan,

As I say above the limitations only apply to non-Black Sea nations, so the UK, France and US cannot deploy their carriers into the Black Sea because they are too big.

The convention, as far as I am aware, does not actually name types of ship. It only gives an aggregated tonnage limitation of 45,000 tons of warships from multiple nations outside the Black Sea (e.g. a conbined task force) and 30,000 tons of agregated shipping from any single nation outside of the Black Sea. So a single carrier owned by a single nation would be limited to 30,000tons and no escort – unless entirely provided by another nation.

However, the Russians, Turkey, Ukraine, etc could build a 120,000 ton carrier in the Black Sea if they wanted to, could afford it and had the infrastructure to do so. I wonder it this convention is another reason why Russia was keen to grab the Crimea and perhaps other parts of Southern(?) and Eastern Ukraine – the ability to build up their Black Sea fleet and hence their presence in the Med without a creditable counter balance..?

Cheers CR

Hi chariot

it’s actually a really interesting bit of the treaty around the strait passage. So Black Sea nations are able to transit capital ships through the straits of 15,000 Tons or more through the provision of annex 11…but and this is big….aircraft carriers were specifically excluded and there is no allowance for the transit of carriers as they are explicitly excluded ( so it does not say you cannot transit a carrier, but it specifically excludes carriers from all the rights of passage, which is a defacto no)

This is a particularly good summary from global security org:

In Annex II of the Convention, “capital Ships” are defined as “surface vessels of war, other than aircraft carriers . . . .” Aircraft carriers are a separate category defined as “surface vessels of war, whatever their displacement, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea.” The Soviet Union proposed the general principle that the straits be closed to aircraft carriers. This was a significant departure from the Lausanne Convention, which had allowed their passage.

The Russians placed this in the treaty because at the time they had no aircraft carriers and its one of the drivers for the big difference between Soviet design and western design.As if the Soviets had built traditional carriers they could not have transited the straits but a capital ship that was clearly an anti surface warfare vessel but supported aviation could ( as at the time of writing all capital ships had sea plane support capabilities).

There are other specific restrictions that also apply to the Black Sea states specifically around submarines. The basics are that once a submarine transit the straits it has to be based in the Black Sea only and is only allowed to leave the Black Sea if it needs a specific shipyard refit that cannot be undertaken in the Black Sea.

You have to remember at that time of the convention it was a negotiation between a lot of European powers so all sides had limitations even the Black Sea states.

what is really interesting is the US never signed this Convention and although they abide by it in theory they are not bound by it and could quote the international rule of the sea on straits passage if they wanted to force their legal right. I don’t think they ever would as it would put their carrier at risk in an enclosed sea. The US have refused to sign a lot of these type of conventions and hold the right to ignore them if they so wish ( that includes the Antarctic treaty and the British sovereign ownership of the British Antarctic territory).

It’s the Montreux Convention signed in 1936 in Switzerland. It controls the Dardanelles strait by warship tonnage. Technically the Italians could sail their three San Giorgio mini helicopter carriers into the Black sea for 3 weeks and operate a dozen F35B’s.

“…Non-Black-Sea powers willing to send a vessel must notify Turkey 15 days prior of their sought passing, while Black Sea states must notify within 8 days of passage. Also, no more than nine foreign warships, with a total aggregate tonnage of 15,000 tons, may pass at any one time. Furthermore, no single ship heavier than 10,000 tonnes can pass.

An aggregate tonnage of all non-Black Sea warships in the Black Sea must be no more than 45,000 tons (with no one nation exceeding 30,000 tons at any given time), and they are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for no longer than twenty-one days…”

I don’t ever recall a naval version of the Tornado never mind one flying from our carriers…

As for use from land, well there is a technique called air-to-air refuelling for extending range – that’s how they fly across the Atlantic.

Yes munitions options are sadly limited at the moment, the big wait seems to be for Block 4 software which will allow the incorporation of more British weapons. There clearly needs to be better open standards for allowing integration of missiles to a variety of platforms – a plug and play approach rather than customisation being required ever time.

F35 is fuel hatted for both RN and RAF use, as the carriers won’t be going into the Black Sea, they could deploy from airfields, hence my ref to Tornadoes.
The problem with AAR, when used with F35 is that these assets need to be futher forward to give the F35 the reach. They are a fat juicy target in arguably contested airspace. Not something that the powers to be would be all that keen on I imagine!
You are totally correct when ref to Blk 4 update, however, this only brings Meteor and Spear Cap 3 to the table for the UK.
Meteor will replace AMRAAM, while S3 is a lightweight slow precision munition with a small warhead. Yes it’s a good weapon, but sometimes you need something with range and a bigger bang – FCASM! Blk 4wont be with us until 2027 at the earliest, and FCASM sometime after that. This squabble will be over by Apr/May, so, arguably this is the wrong aircraft for this role, perhaps more suited to our Typhoons with greater range/payload and weapons choices.
There are obviously other roles that the F35 could fulfill and nodoubt excel at, but currently long range strike in this scenario isn’t one of them unless we want to loose our small stock rapidly.

The AAR tankers need to be further forward only when refuelling the F35s, they can be based well to the rear or even out of theatre. Arguably all airspace in theatre is contested but the F35s first objective is to take out enemy air defences and assets as its first task: hence its stealth.
(Though how many would remain after the opening obligatory cruise-missile barrage is questionable.)

So the tankers might theoretically be nice juicy targets, but the enemy won’t have anything to track them, let alone intercept them.

Precise munitions is the preferred course in future. Tolerance of collateral damage; such as civilians and children, is less acceptable these days. It’s one of the big differentiators between the bombing NATO does and imprecise bombing the Russians deploy.

All hypothetical anyway as we’re not going to war with Russia 🤷🏻‍♂️

Not as simple as that I believe Sean. If we were to get involved in a shooting war, the tankers would be the first on any target list. Many modern Russian aircraft – Su 35 series et Al, have a significant range advantage over the F35. They don’t have to fight them, just deny them the ability to reach their targets. Tankers and AEW aircraft are and will remain fat juicy first strike targets.
But you are correct, we are not going to war with Russia, which is just as well given the state our AF are currently in!

Difficult to fly an SU-35 when your airfield has been clobbered by a cruise missile barrage in the first few minutes of a war. Those that make it into the air will be too busy trying to defend themselves from F35s sent in to mop up to ever wonder where any tankers might be.

Oh, I assume the baddies (other side) don’t have any AAM or LACM ability then?
I think you might just find that Russian missile development over the past few years has at least matched our capabilities if not exceeded them.
They also procure their systems in far greater numbers then we in the West do- probably a defensive mindset no doubt aided by several invasions into their countries over the past hundred odd years!
The PRC build up of forces and equipment (missiles amongst others) finally forced the US to act. They are trying to catch up by buying lots of both offensive and defensive missile systems. In Europe we haven’t really got on board that ship just yet, so I would say we are at a distinct disadvantage in any shooting war, somewhat at odds with your previous post.

Why do we have so few ships when the Royal Navy’s budget is so large?

It isn’t large. The navy budget has been cut less than the army and airforce’s in the latest round of cuts. However, it was decimated in 2010 along with everything else and there has been no significant attempt to restore it since. That’s why.

The majority of navy’s capital spending at the moment goes on our nuclear deterrent submarines, a £41bn project including contingency, dwarfing the carrier project that preceded it (< £8bn), and the ongoing Type 26 project (c. £10bn).

Trying to figure out where future money will go is virtually impossible. Consider the following statement from the MoD Outcome Delivery Plan 2021/22.

“We will spend over £85-billion in the next four years on equipment and equipment support, modernising the capabilities of our Armed Forces and ensuring they are better integrated.”

Now try to figure out how that’ll be achieved with a capital DEL of £14bn per annum. Headline numbers can never be taken at face value, typically being inflated by spending on things that you wouldn’t expect to be included.

Don’t forget the billions we spent on Afghanistan over many years with very little or nothing to show for it.

True, but you can’t predict what a future US President will do. I’m a little more pissed off about the almost wasted body count, and not just our troops.

Permanent change in Afghanistan would take 100 years of support (or between 12 and 20 successive Presidents all agreeing). Outside powers always underestimate required levels of commitment in Afghanistan.

We could have left after 6 months and it still would have sent a message about exporting Jihad. Being there for 20 years was neither one thing nor the other.

Well I hope some of the Afghans enjoyed their brief dose of something less oppressive, despite the all round high cost.

Jon, really liking your commentary- well written!

Daniele for PM
Others for Defence – Gunbuster? Airbourne? CR, Deep et al?
Can I be Minister for Transport?

Rear area and homeland security my friend, with your background! Who else to oversee the RMP to deal with all the malingerers, saboteurs and “stragglers”

Wore green, took the cobblers and served with fantastic SNCOs, met De La Billiere – but, I couldn’t find anywhere to hide from him; generally, it’s like the British Army is the best because of Sandhurst and our officer class and we know how to fight insurgency warfare…

And then the reality struck and the Americans were digging us out of Basra, US forces took back Helmand.

Daniele will shoot me, but, SNCOs I’ll bet they are still world beating, however, the officer cohort need change.

Just my opinion and no offence intended.

Do you have a conflict between your view of the officer cohort in first and third paragraphs?

Some senior officers really do baffle me though with their very odd views – and inability to create good future structures and to expedite effective procurement.

He was Dir SF, not your usual Rupert. Contrast him with the leadership of the Armed Forces under dear old Black Mafia Nick.

SF achieve things… we might not agree if we knew how, so thankfully, that remains hidden.

If you have one, you’re far less likely to put in in a dangerous situation because it’s loss is a 100% capability loss and a huge dent in national pride/morale. The T45s were designed to be the air-destroyers for the CSG, so less carriers would actually mean less T45s.

The problem isn’t this service spent X amount on that or Y on something else to the detriment of another service. The problem quite simply is that the government chooses to spend less then 2% of GDP on the armed forces for whatever reason then is required.
And yes it is less then 2% without any dodgy accounting, as government receipts from various taxes and duties came in at around £800 billion for the year 2020-2021.
Makes you wonder why we can’t fund NHS. Elderly care and education properly, never mind the AF and the rest of it.

Hi Cripes,

Whilst I accept your numbers with regards to the carriers, my point is that far too much has been wasted over the same timeframe on projects that have gone nowhere.

It is the waste that needs dealing with first IMO, so I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

As for overall defence spending, it is far too low and has been for sometime – that I am sure we can agree on. My concern is that far too much would be wasted on delivering pretty much nothing even if spending was significantly increased and that there needs to be a fundemental change within MoD in how requirements and projects are delivered. Whether the MoD is even capable of making those changes is something that is clearly open to doubt, given that these issues have been on-going for decades.

It is a sorry state of affairs any which way you look at it.

Cheers CR

Never mind me for PM….CR is far more diplomatic and statesmanlike.

Or would you prefer to be MoD CSA in David’s dream government?!😁

You’d have my vote if you ran for Minister of Defence .
CR for Foreign secretary. PM? Gawd -who would want that job?

Yes! I was gutted when DB listed me as PM! I don’t want it!

Your nomination is withdrawn… hasten to the back benches. Airborne?

😆

Yeah, there are two main problems.

We are buying big-ticket items like SSBNs and carriers that are simply unaffordable on barely 2% of GDP, which is totally screwing up the rest of the procurement programme and causing a major down-sizing in equipment numbers and capabilities. It means every other item of equipment is then doubly under the microscope on cost, with an endless search.for economies and capability cuts.

Two, as you say , is the money wasted on new equipment projects by the MOD. FRES, WCSP and Ajax are obvious ones, but redesigned Astutes to take PWR2 when PWR3 was the obvious , less-expensive choice, T45 engines that can’t handle high temperatures and so.on make a bit of a catalogue of woe.

One could overstate it , new equipments often have unexpected flaws or teething problems, happens in all countries e.g. F-35, NH90, neither yet fixed.

But we seem to do it in style in the UK. The central question as I see it is – Who is the central authority that takes a project from staff target through to equipment delivery? It is not the individual services nor is it the MOD, the procurement.task falls to the Defence Equipment & Support Organisation (DE&SO) in Abbey Wood.

They have been cut from near-on 30,000 civvies and service staff to about 12 000 and it seems pretty obvious that they have lost a lot of their specialist technical expertise.

They seem to pass the paperwork over to the contractor then play a paper-pushing role in the middle, with the power to tick boxes and smack wrists but not the expertise to evaluate what is being produced. The result at the moment is Ajax or similar.

If we want to improve procurement, then an objective outside look at Abbey Wood followed by a new broom and a lot of hard changes would seem to be a good starting point.

opting for overpriced, overated slow to build offerings from the latest BAE catalogue, has been the downfall of the R.N the best air defence ship in the world(?) which can’t go out on a sunny day! multi billion unarmed carriers that HAD TO HAVE the best(and most expensive) aircraft on the planet.WE MUST HAVE sea ceptor or sea viper even if over a dozen nations around the world use the raytheon RAM116 at a third of the price each.this overpriced too slow to build slow leaky prematurely rustinginternally b and q plug fittings unpopular with ever superstitious submarine crews. other major ships like the albions carry pop guns, four years to build patrol boats. the size of small nations frigates.accepting the fitted for but not with policies. us ex matelots could and would go on for hours about all this, its just such a mess. and no amount of we’re getting fifth generation aircraft, two classes of frigates which will all be in service by the twelth of never.half of the fleet are patrol boats more suited to pootling up and down the thames than bearing the white ensign.

Hi Cripes. Some good commentary and insights on the numbers – thank you for posting

Just the army who operates Apaches, not the RN as well – but good point.
I favour scrapping the independent nuclear deterrent for a host of reasons and investing the savings into conventioanl weapons, with the army at the front of the queue.

Just the army… so far…

The acquisitive RN has said several times that it would like 13 Apaches, to allow for a aquadron of 8 on the carrier. Thst is how these things start, can we borrow a few please then, when they’ve got them, these are RN assets now, can someone else provide the OEU and OCU for our ‘joint force’ please.

Very happy for the RN to have Apaches – as long as they pay for them from their own equipment budget rather than freeload on the army.

Ditto the F-35s, jointery is all very well, but the RAF budget is actually paying for it, the RN equipment budget should pay half the cost as they seem to want the lion’s share of the F-35 fleet.

Tend to agree on the independent deterrent. If Parliament wants it, as it voted for, great – but HMG needs to cough up.the cash to pay for it on top of the existing defence vote. it is so large a chunk of spending that it smashes the procurement budget for the services and makes us weak and under-equipped across the board.

Fascinating, amazing and inexplicable. The army was supposed to buy 99 Apaches but the Treasury cut it back to 67 – back in the day. Then only 50 will be replaced by the E model. The army has absolutely not got 13 (quarter of their new fleet) to gift to the FAA.
Why does the FAA want to kill enemy tanks anyway!

The SSBNs and their operating costs always used to be paid for direct by the Treasury, then they sneakily shifted funding responsibility to the Navy – why no Admiral protested that sleight of hand at the time, I have no idea.

Thanks mate. I also hear that WCSP was not funded for Production, which was the main reason it was scrapped.