Originally Posted by WEBF
Perhaps Mr Cummings forgot to tell the US Navy and the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy these things?
China and the USA have very different geo-strategic priorities to the UK. Each has more ability to tolerate combat losses, for differing reasons. And the US has invested spectacular amounts of money in developing ballistic missile defence capability for its task groups.
Originally Posted by WEBF
Now why is it the nation that produces DF-21 is building carriers?
One, China's strategic priorities don't include poking around the fringes of US home territory. Two, it might previously have assumed that the INF treaty would prevent the US from fielding an equivalent. Things change!
Why was it that NATO asked for the UK to commit a carrier to the NATO Response Force? Something to do with task group operations?
Investing so much in a capability inevitably creates political pressure for it to be used for something. See also: fast jets doing 'drone' work in the Middle East.
Thousands of souls aboard? Where? Perhaps a bit more attention detail?
Fair enough, hundreds. But I'll pay attention the other way too and increase the number of aircraft to 40+. It's still a single point of strategic failure and its loss would deal a devastating blow to UK air power and national prestige.
Originally Posted by WEBF
Surely Col Boyd's work related (primarily) to aircraft fighting each other within visual range? Some hardcore disciples wanted the F-16 to have neither radar nor missiles!
Beyond aviation circles, Boyd is best known for the OODA loop, but fanatics who delve deeply into his works (presumably including Cummings) would gain awareness of debates over combat radius, loiter time, tanker requirements etc which are all applicable here. Boyd is also appreciated for his mantra “people, ideas, machines - in that order”, which tellingly is opposite to MOD thinking on most subjects and especially the carriers.
Originally Posted by WEBF
1. A carrier is not the only high value unit in a task group. There might well be amphibious forces, or important RFAs, or crisis response shipping. What is the best way do protect them from aircraft with anti ship missiles, that they can fire from beyond the range of any ship based surface to air missile?
With modern technology the
best way is to ignore the launch aircraft and deploy an effective, sustainable counter-missile capability.
Originally Posted by WEBF
Which scenario are you envisaging?