OK carrier blokes! This is why we don't need 'em!
But would the QM2 really be available to support the next Falklands, now that Cunard is US owned an all...?
Seems to me like this is ripe for PFI. Maybe we could rent or reserve some deck space on Ike or Reagan, put up traffic cones and a sign that says "reserved do not park here - Brits on their way"? Or maybe we could use this floating kingdom ship with the runway on the top, sure the accomodation would be well above the 4 to a room lark the Navy types are used to. Insist that all British registered container ships (are there any?) carry those big rolls of runway repair matting to be thrown over the top of the boxes. Time for some lateral thinking.
Jacko posted:
1) We're never going to do a major op without the Yanks. Like it or not, that's the decision.
2) For that reason we don't need to do everything. They will always be there
Jacko
Could you elucidate us, perhaps just me perhaps as to the paradigm shift that has occurred between 1982 and today that make you embrace bullet point one. Juxtapose that against another Malvinas type action. Perhaps Zimbabwe might be a better and more relevant situations. Both of those go beyond the issue of carriers and speak to an independent, sustained capability. I cant see the US heading to Africa to save a bunch of expat farmers. If however they do, it would be in a supporting role to a regional authority or colonial tied nation, with a commensurate force level of support operations
Its one thing to say your simply not going to have capabilities in an area due to the bottom line and accept that your ass in gonna hang out somewhat. I believe its another to simply say we are quite assured we are hitching our wagon to the guy with all the toys and he will be there in our time of need.
1) We're never going to do a major op without the Yanks. Like it or not, that's the decision.
2) For that reason we don't need to do everything. They will always be there
Jacko
Could you elucidate us, perhaps just me perhaps as to the paradigm shift that has occurred between 1982 and today that make you embrace bullet point one. Juxtapose that against another Malvinas type action. Perhaps Zimbabwe might be a better and more relevant situations. Both of those go beyond the issue of carriers and speak to an independent, sustained capability. I cant see the US heading to Africa to save a bunch of expat farmers. If however they do, it would be in a supporting role to a regional authority or colonial tied nation, with a commensurate force level of support operations
Its one thing to say your simply not going to have capabilities in an area due to the bottom line and accept that your ass in gonna hang out somewhat. I believe its another to simply say we are quite assured we are hitching our wagon to the guy with all the toys and he will be there in our time of need.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Host Nation Support?
The proponents of the Carrier often make much of shore based air's realiance on HNS. Yet the Maritime Commander of the UKMARFOR during TELIC said he couldn't have conducted operations without the considerable HNS he received from Kuwait. I suspect that HNS is just as much a critical factor to maritime ops as it is to air.
The other myth that could do with dispelling is on overflight. Just because you launch at sea in international waters doesn't mean you can ignore overflight requirements - unless your potential enemy has a coastline of course. Overflight also applies to cruise missiles/TLAM!
Is there any hard evidence, say in the last 15 years, that air operations have been impossible because of the lack of HNS either for basing or overflight - I suspect this is a specious argument which is unsupported by the facts.
The new CV(F)s will be a very nice string to our bow but lets not delude ourselves into believing they are essential - useful, flexible but expensive and still requiring considerable back-up from larger, shore-based, fixed wing platforms before they can deploy the full panoply of air power even during early entry operations.
The other myth that could do with dispelling is on overflight. Just because you launch at sea in international waters doesn't mean you can ignore overflight requirements - unless your potential enemy has a coastline of course. Overflight also applies to cruise missiles/TLAM!
Is there any hard evidence, say in the last 15 years, that air operations have been impossible because of the lack of HNS either for basing or overflight - I suspect this is a specious argument which is unsupported by the facts.
The new CV(F)s will be a very nice string to our bow but lets not delude ourselves into believing they are essential - useful, flexible but expensive and still requiring considerable back-up from larger, shore-based, fixed wing platforms before they can deploy the full panoply of air power even during early entry operations.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pontius,
Are you suggesting that we could mount offensive air ops against the FI from Ascension? I'm not sure our air-to-air refuelling capability is any better now than it was in 82. i.e. same number of VC10s but no Victors.
I'm far from convinced that we could support two full squadrons in the air over that distance or anywhere close.
Are you suggesting that we could mount offensive air ops against the FI from Ascension? I'm not sure our air-to-air refuelling capability is any better now than it was in 82. i.e. same number of VC10s but no Victors.
I'm far from convinced that we could support two full squadrons in the air over that distance or anywhere close.
Last edited by Navaleye; 30th Jul 2004 at 14:44.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with Pontius on this one. Seems to me that a carrier is great if it happens to be nearby (ie you can maintain 6 or 7 carrier battle groups around the world like the yanks). Otherwise it seems to be projecting air power at fast walking pace.
Perhaps in a future op we could launch the aircraft from UK and let the carrier catch up, like Sierra Leone, Mozambique etc. As regards Host Nation Support, sea power needs it too. Which Royal Marines do you think were better prepared for Afghanistan, the ones that were floating around in the Indian Ocean for weeks before the ships were refused permission to dock at Karachi and then had to sail back to Seeb to be inserted by AIR, or the ones who were live firing at Barry Budden only a few days before they FLEW out?
Perhaps in a future op we could launch the aircraft from UK and let the carrier catch up, like Sierra Leone, Mozambique etc. As regards Host Nation Support, sea power needs it too. Which Royal Marines do you think were better prepared for Afghanistan, the ones that were floating around in the Indian Ocean for weeks before the ships were refused permission to dock at Karachi and then had to sail back to Seeb to be inserted by AIR, or the ones who were live firing at Barry Budden only a few days before they FLEW out?
Your point is taken however..
Having your Marines off the coast of a potential adversary does more to influence a situation than having them sitting back in the UK. That said, I don't know the answer to your question.
Having your Marines off the coast of a potential adversary does more to influence a situation than having them sitting back in the UK. That said, I don't know the answer to your question.
Thread Starter
In Afghanistan, having Ronseal-type Special Forces troops, loadsa tankers and Canberra PR9s to contribute gave us influence. None of our allies were begging us to send a CVS or two.....
Suspicion breeds confidence
None of our allies were begging us to send a CVS or two.....
