Iraq: The UK Sends the Ark Royal (RN Flagship). This is not a good sign...

Great Debates
1

Today it was announced that the Royal Navy’s Flagship, Ark Royal, is being “forward positioned” to be near Iraq for any possible strike.

She is joining the US 5th Fleet for “exercises” (similar to those in Quatar and Oman at the beginning of the Afghanistan strikes).

As this story (From the London Evening Standard - A reliable source for politcal news) makes clear it appears that the British Government has decided that war with Iraq is inevitable.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/top_story.html?in_review_id=659623&in_review_text_id=630680

The flag carrier of the Royal Navy doesn’t make social calls. It only has one purpose, and it appears it’s going to be used soon.

2

Dear Saddam,

Please take more seriously what Mr Kofi Annan is saying with regard the re-admittance of UN Inspectors because we’re not sure we can talk Georgie out of this just yet.

Yours with transparent brinkmanship,

Tony Blair

3

Just wanted to pop in to say that the Royal Navy has by far the coolest ship names.

The Ark Royal
The Fair Rosamund
The Valiant
The Relentless
The Dauntless
The Leviathan
The Terrible

also
The Spanker
The Vindictive
The Manly
The Pansy
The Fancy
The Venus

4

Opinion polls show 91% of Britons opposed to war with Iraq. Recently published reports of exercises in the Middle East have established that our troops’ radios don’t work, our tanks clog up with dust and break down, our rifles seize up at the mere mention of sand, and our army boots melt in the heat.

Something tells me Tony is just showing willing with this one…

5

I find this development to be less than world shattering. When you take into account that this “carrier” can only carry 9 planes while most US carriers can carry over 70, you have to decide that this is purely a theatrical move.

A ship with this few planes would have trouble threatening anybody but the French.:slight_smile:

6

And Britain has more than one aircraft carrier and they all show the flag around the world with regularity.

Plus those Harriers aren’t really made to do deep penetration raids into Iraq, like those land-based Tornado squadrons which have been rotating in and out of the area for a decade already. These are outstanding low-level attack bombers with experienced pilots. The UK also has plenty of other forces like the Royal Marines stationed in the area at all times ready to go.

More useful to any kind of attack against Iraq would be all the escort ships, the destroyers and submarines, fuel ships and frigates, that sail with the Ark Royal rather than the carrier itself.

7

Carriers are often used as an implicit threat. When an area of the world heats up, all the U.S. has to do is steam a carrier over there, and things tend to calm down a bit. That’s why carriers are so prized among countries that desire to have world reach - just the existence of them tends to project power even when they aren’t used.

I suspect the reason the Ark Royal is heading there is just to put a little bit more heat on Saddam.

8

Tell the Argentine airforce how ineffective the British Harrier-carriers are.

9

Oh Yeah, thats a real powerhouse of an airforce

10

From today’s Financial Times…

Meanwhile an NOP survey for Channel 4 found that 52 per cent of adults believe Britain should not become involved militarily if the US goes to war with Iraq. Thirty-four per cent back such action, while 14 per cent are undecided.

Given the “rallying round” effect when TV shows troops boarding aircraft, that would translate into a majority in favor of UK involvement (not that the US depends on it).

What would the polls show if you asked “Do you think Saddam Hussein can safely be trusted with the nuclear and other weapons he is developing?” I think the UK can be trusted to do the right thing, and the Europeans and Guardian readers will end up looking stupid when Iraqis are dancing on Saddam’s grave.

11

This reminds me of a website I visited recently that comprehensively lists the all naval vessels by country. It’s as if someone told Europe, “psst… if you want to be taken seriously you gotta have at least ONE carrier”.

The UK has three VSTOL carriers, Arc Royal, Invincible and the Illustrious. One of them is always in reserve or refit, and they each usually carry 8 Sea Harriers and a dozen Sea King helicopters. There are also plans to build two more carriers of much larger size that may be either STOVL or CTOL, no set date for constuction.

The UK has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world next to the US.

France has the Charles de Gaulle, but it is a full carrier with a compliment of 35-40 aircraft and is nuclear powered.

Italy has the VSTOL carrier Guiseppe Garibaldi and another named Andrea Doria to be built in 2007.

Spain has the VSTOL carrier Principe de Asturias, which is it’s flagship.

Russia has one full CTOL carrier, the Kuznetsov, but it has been inactive awaiting overhaul since 1998.

As for the rest of the world (excluding the US), India has the VSTOL carrier Viraat (previously HMS Hermes). Thailand has an extremely small VSTOL carrier named Chakri Nareubet, but it is currently inactive. Brazil will operate the former French carrier Clemenceau renamed the Sao Paulo.

The US has 11 carriers, 7 Nimitz class, 3 Kitty Hawk class and the Enterprise. All are nuclear powered full CTOL carriers that can accomodate 80+ aircraft each.

Two things come to mind when you consider this information. One, merely having and operating a carrier group is a huge deal. They represent a major commitment of resources and manpower bringing to bear military power most of the world cannot possibly match. Two, the US navy has no competition. None. If you put the rest of the world’s navies together they wouldn’t quite measure up. I’m not saying this just to be a jerk, to me that is SOBERING information. It gives you some idea of how much we spend in this country on our military. I’m not saying that it isn’t necessary or that’s it’s even a BAD thing, just sobering.

Even so I’m glad the Royal Navy is steaming in with us, they do a fine job and will undoubtedly help a great deal if it comes to war.

12

A great deal? Are you being serious? I mean there may be an occasion when there really is some mission the Brits’ (non-special forces) could carry out with some degree of usefulness which the US could not amply carry out itself, but it’s hard for me to see what that would be.
I’m not trying to denigrate our efforts to provide the US (or is that provide the coalition?) with some degree of support, but it seems that where we really can have an effect is diplomatically (trying to get the Europeans ‘onside’ and in the security council) and in ‘signing up’ so a coalition can be said to have formed.
Our military efforts, IMO, are no more than a desire for UK politicians to see our boys on the front pages rather than a feeling that we really can effect the outcome of any potential military situation.

13

It seemed to me Brazil already had an operationnal carrier…Am I wrong?

14

Brazil currently has a light aircraft carrier, the Minas Gerais, which will be decommissioned and replaced by the Sao Paulo in 2003.

15

And by the way, it’s the carrier Foch which has been sold to Brazil. The carrier Clemenceau has been decommissioned, I believe…

16

I think The Righteous Bastard would be a good name for a destroyer.

17

Honest question:
For the UK, aren’t four smaller aircraft carriers a better option than one large one with equivalent total capacity - sure, there’s an economy of scale with a larger vessel, but putting all your eggs in one basket isn’t necessarily a good idea.

18

I rather like that name. As in “Oh Fock, here they come again !”
Have to agree with others in that projecting air power is a relative term for most countries now - seems to me all countries, save the US, are pretty much defence orientated with token projections. Or falling apart (the Russians).

19

I 'm not an expert Mangetout, but you have to think (given the length of time these ships spend being refitted and between tours), if you want an effective but small Carrier fleet, the UK probably has it about right.

Small but perfectly formed - anyone for HMS Kylie ?

20

I’m rather ignorant on these issue, but though what you say makes sense, a dozen of planes (and especially VTOL, since I understand they have somewhat limited capabilities) really doesn’t seem much for any significant operation.
AFAIK, the UK intend to build relatively soon new and larger carriers. How many of them? And how many planes will they be able to carry?