Originally Posted by
Finningley Boy
SLXOwft,
The report I read was more of a headliner, but attached Wallace's name to it. The claim was more the inverse intention, that is that no more than 10% of the RAF by 2040 would be peopled! As for the nautical sweeping aside of airfields, I wonder how things like Tankers and Transports, of the current form, would get on with a carrier? Or aircrew training indeed? Once again, I think the pro-carrier anti-airfield case is more of an anti-RAF attack again. The point this Herbert made is clearly sweeping. Further, what about the current in demand need for QRA? Should that be addressed by positioning the QE or POW permanently in the North Sea?
FB
I doubt the contention is that one replaces UK airfields with carriers. Not having coughed for the Tellys paywall, I've not read the letter/article, but would suspect it is intended to offer a counter to the contention that carriers are somehow more vulnerable than airfields in theatre. They're two different things. In the event a carrier is seriously hit and damaged, then she's out of the game for a while (weeks or months), but it's very hard to hit a moving and defended target. An airfield won't sink, but it is relatively simple with the help of google earth to study an airfield in detail and identify those facilities that if hit will render it unusable, however much matting is available. Arguably, the same threats (alright not submarines!) that people worry about for carriers are even more dangerous for a fixed site with semi-real time BDA available.