D2,
As far as I'm aware, the weapons effectiveness of the Tornado GR1 and Harrier GR7 assets involved in OAF was sound, despite some post confict statistical criticism. Certainly, I would suggest that both fleets' effectiveness stand up to scrutiny in comparison to other (non JDAM capable assets) given the extreme political, C2 and weather factors involved during the Kosovo conflict.
Yes, in an ideal world the Tornados should have been forward deployed from the outset, but ramp space throughout Europe (particularly for combat, as opposed to combat support assets (such as my own)) was at an absolute premium. That is why some F-15Es flew from the UK, and 50% of the F-117s flew from Germany. This clearly is where carriers can be useful, in augmenting land based aviation (although maritime aviation is nearly always reliant upon land based combat support assets). To reiterate however, your suggestion that the Tornados did 'very little to alter anything in Kosovo' is emotional and inaccurate.
You also state that the primary RN LI from Kosovo was that 'carriers played a useful and versatile role in the conflict'. I'd like to think that I come across as impartial in this thread. However, for the life of me, I cannot think of exactly what the single CVS allocated to the op achieved. First of all, the CVS was only around for a very short part of the conflict. When it was there, the SHARs flew very short duration DCA CAPs witin the FYROM and Albania only. Furthermore, the FA2s did not drop (or, to my knowledge even carry) bombs, nor were they used in a recce role. Likewise, the Sea King AEW and ASW were non players. From my perspective, the major OAF LI for the RN was the potential of TLAM.
If the LI referred to the USN CVNs then fine. A small number of the daily CAS pushes into Kosovo were allocated solely to the USN (indeed, the F-14s were particularly effective in the AFAC role). However, this was primarily because the USN are a nightmare to work with (eg using local time rather than Z, using their own procedures, codewords, complan, Optask LINK and ignoring the ACO/SPINS etc). Additionally, despite S-3B AAR, the USN assets relied heavily upon land based AAR and ISTAR, and barely ventured beyond Kosovo into Serbia itself. In such a context, a QE2 Class would indeed have been useful assuming a decent compliment of F-35s.
Finally, you mention the low Iraqi A-A threats from Int during TELIC. Whilst I'm not about to get into discussing Int assessments from such a recent conflict, the Iraqi's still possessed numerous serviceable MIG-23 and (most notably) MIG-25s. Both of these assets had shown themselves capable of mounting aggressive ops in the NFZs over recent months. This was particularly a concern for assets such as my own. Even the loss of a single E-3, E-8, SIGINT or tanker asset would have been a major blow to the coalition. Therefore, are you really suggesting that we didn't need DCA?!!! If you are, then come flying on one of these assets in the next punch up and see how you like it! Additionally, weren't such Int sources also talking about Iraqi WMD?!!!
I would agree that swing role is the way to go. No one is denying that fact. That is why money is now being spent on Typhoon and F-35 right now. The majority of the RAF would have loved to have had F-15Es 10+ years ago (rather than swing role Typhoons in 2007 (if we're lucky)). But the military don't make decisions on what we buy. The govt do that, always with an eye on jobs and votes.
Impinger,
AAR during OAF was NOT primarily needed to service the USN assets. Whilst the USN assets were more reliant upon AAR than some (not all) land based assets, the massive AAR effort during Kosovo was largely expended on land based assets (albeit because they formed the vast majority of assets involved) on a joint basis.
Once again, land based and maritime air power complement each other. In Kosovo the lousy weathor sometimes grounded aircraft at an immobile air base while a carrier could move and launch. Likewise, sometimes there were factors (eg RAS requirements and AAR) that precluded maritime aviation being commited. We (ie HMF) need Typhoon just as much as we need CVF with a decent compliment of F-35.
Regards,
M2
Last edited by Magic Mushroom; 5th Jan 2004 at 07:55.