Originally Posted by
Melchett01
I don’t disagree with you that the RN needs to grow - even from my RAF side of the fence it strikes me as rather odd for an island nation with global aspirations to have such a small blue water fleet. But to say we need to increase the number of escorts to support the carrier rather than we need an effective fleet to carry out missions x,y & z does rather make it seem as though the carriers are now the RN’s mission. Either that or someone in Fleet Plans had incredibly big balls and worked on the theory that the loss of or inability to use a carrier would be so politically embarrassing and strategically damaging that HMG would have to provide funding for more ships thereby dragging the size of the fleet up. It’s an interesting question as I’m just reading Gen Richard Shirreff’s book War with Russia and the lack of effective escort screen is the primary cause for losing the carrier whilst it waited for the rest of the NATO TG to arrive.
Exactly. Tail wagging the financial dog and I firmly believe that was the RN's gamble when they launched on this 'purchase' mission..
Imagine winning the battle with short term tactical thinking, clever as it may be and then having to gamble on the long term strategic goal - many war leaders have achieved it but do we have the calibre of people to achieve it in office today or have we all been taken for a ride? Carrier/Brexit...? Same thinking