Originally Posted by
Asturias56
"Despite quoting predictions based on it at every opportunity"
because dear boy that's what almost every article/expert/ navy quotes -
"usually to support some spurious argument that we should bin off the carriers in order to have more escorts, for reasons which you are never able to articulate, nor indeed what all these other escorts are supposed to do without air cover."
true I think the carriers are a gross waste of men and money for the UK - the reasons have been argued by others as well for many years on here. And you don't need carriers to have air cover.
And the rest of the navy doesn't exist to "escort" carriers - not much global coverage if all of then are steaming around 1 or 2carriers is there?
I realise this is not popular with those who served in carriers previously but there is only one navy in the world that has serious air cover provided by carriers - and its not the UK
I note that you remain completely unable to articulate what it is you think these escorts do, as well as perpetuating the myth that you don't need carriers to provide air cover over maritime forces against any real threat at any significant distance from land (go on, name one).
If that big carrier navy is not available in Europe. Who provides the air cover?