Originally Posted by
FODPlod
I'm struggling to understand here. Notwithstanding the merits of higher sortie generation from being closer to the target and the vulnerability of a fixed land base to all manner of attack compared to an agile, well-defended carrier task group, are you claiming that fixed land bases, from which land-based a/c can attack the enemy, are beyond the range of enemy land-based a/c whereas carrier task groups aren't?
No, apologies. I have not really covered the point I was trying to make properly. Finding a carrier group at sea is very difficult, but as you shorten the range of your strike group with no AAR capability you do make it easier merely by reducing the amount of water the task group can operate from. Potentially your adversary with longer ranged strike capability (either through ac with longer legs, or AAR, and thus able to operate from airfields outside the range of your strike force) can bring some real firepower to the party. Also, if you are in the littoral there are some very capable, non ocean going, non nuke, submarines that could spoil your day. These can be afforded by less than peer countries.
It's not the be all and end all. I think carriers are an essential, I just don't think the UK made the right choice in plumping for a STOVL only ship.