Jacko did you read that RUSI memorandum that I posted a link to?
Helicopters being carried by RFA ships as a SECONDARY function is by no means new. Newer RFAs can carry even more helicopters as well as achieving their supply role. It does not necessarily mean deploying extra ships. When forces are deployed, logistics are involved. For UK naval forces that means the RFA. You may find their website (
www.rfa.mod.uk) interesting - particularly the "History" section.
This is a quote from it.....
All the tankers and stores ships, with the exception of the LEAF-class, have large flight-decks, hangars and facilities to embark helicopters. These can be used to carry out re-supply by transferring underslung loads, but can also operate from the RFA's as anti-submarine or troop carriers, thus making the RFA ships "force multipliers", additional operational units to the task force. In the 1998 Gulf crisis both FORT GEORGE and FORT VICTORIA carried five helicopters with all their aircrews and support staff on a permanent basis.
In the last few years, the UK has made considerable investments in amphibous warfare. Firstly our LPH,
Ocean, then the LPD(R)s, then the RFA
Bay Class. But what good are these ships if we cannot achieve at least a measure of air superiority?
Or are they just expensive toys to impress Uncle Sam?
Everyone seems to assume that a task group would exist to support the CVS. But a CVS with Sea Harriers could be needed to provide air defence for frigates and destroyers etc to allow them to operate in an area where there is a air threat considered to have the potential to saturate or evade ship based defences. We should be capable of such operations according to the Future Navy Operational Concept Paper 2001.