Originally Posted by
Asturias56
" I think what you meant to say was that operating carriers and SSNs together is essential "
No I meant they are both extremely expensive to buy and operate - and whilst an SSN will survive without a carrier escort it isn't the same the other way round............
Why would the SSN need a carrier (or any other) escort?
In the face of massed air and submarine threats, can the amphibious force or reinforcement/resupply convoy survive without a carrier with fighters and ASW helicopters? See the HSC
Fire and Ice paper which highlights the Cold War roles of NATO carriers, possible maritime threats during a conflict in the NATO theatre, and the role of British, American, French, Italian (and Spanish) carriers in responding to Russian attempts to interdict Sea Lines of Communications or to strike NATO vulnerable points. Indeed the paper calls for a a British led carrier task group with NATO ships including SSNs and SSKs being part of that group.
Originally Posted by KiloB
A lot of people believe that building Carriers now is the equivalent of building Battleships in 1935. Let’s hope they are wrong!
The problem with the battleship was that her ability to hit other warships or other vessels, or targets ashore, was limited by the range of her guns. Her ability to deal with air attack, or to defend other ships in a convoy, was very limited, and her anti submarine capability was approximately zero. Carriers could (and can) do all these things, with her aircraft working with other warships.
See this cracking old documentary:
At 7.00 minutes there is mention of escort carriers and the crucial role that they played in the Atlantic and in the Arctic Convoys - with fighters and torpedo bombers (performing anti U boat roles). The long range actions at Taranto, Matapan, and against the
Bismarck and
Tirpitz are also mentioned.