Originally Posted by
Gordon Brown
You haven't answered the question.
What is the point of a 65000 ton behemoth that carries a few 'invisible' jumping beans whose only surface attack capability comprises a couple of 500lb precision guided bombs (assuming there is no noticeable jamming environment) with an FT of about 5nm?
I am sure you are aware that the F-35B Lightning Force build up is rather slow, but the plan is to put two squadrons aboard the carrier - both 617Sqn and 809NAS are pencilled in for CSG25 as far as I know, plus a full load of Merlins. As you are are also no doubt aware the jets have roles other than surface attack - such as air defence, and they have intercepted Russian jets in the Mediterranean and more recently in the Norwegian Sea, and in recent weeks American carrierborne Hornets have splashed both suicide UAVs and anti ship missiles.
Some of the weapons due for integration have an anti surface unit role, and some (particularly American writers) point out that since the enemy warship is most likely missile armed, the carrier's aircraft should concentrate on killing the missile at range and let surface warships deal with the enemy vessel - the missiles will be more numerous than the ships they are fired from. Additionally long range missiles frequently depend on airborne platforms for targeting - which can be engaged if a force has its own fighters.
The carrier also has an anti submarine warfare role with multiple ASW helicopters. This has been a major carrier role in the Royal Navy since 1960 and experience has shown the value of basing a squadron of them aboard the same ship - coordination, communications, maintenance, and logistic support. For
Steadfast Defender 24, no less than seven ASW Merlins were/are to be embarked (as well as Crowsnest fitted cabs and some Jungly Wildcats).
Originally Posted by langleybaston
Seemingly defending the Indefensible takes a lot of words.
• Project decisive air power from a protected maritime task group, including gaining and retaining the necessary degree of sea control to ensure Freedom of Manoeuvre.
Seems understandable enough to me!
Our geographical location, dependency on seaborne commerce, and role in NATO (and other alliances) make the carrier of particular value to the UK. World trade relies on the free movement of merchant ships, NATO relies on transatlantic reinforcement and maritime transport within the European theatre, seaborne logistics have been critical for moving forces and equipment for dealing with crises elsewhere, and we wish to retain the ability to put forces ashore at a time and place of our choosing. I have previously answered a similar question from you by saying that the carriers are for the related missions of Sea Control and Power Projection - and some consider moving forces by sea or amphibious operations as power projection.
Sea Control (sometimes used as short hand for ASW, air defence, and so on - in other words fighting the war at sea) can be defined as
acquiring and securing the privilege to use the maritime space in the period as expected. Threats exist on the surface, underwater, and in the air. In some places you would have to consider land based missiles.
Surface threats: The carrier can launch aircraft to detect hostile vessels and engage them (when suitably armed) at long range. Modern air to air missiles also provide the capability to shoot down missiles that enemy vessels have fired, reducing the danger of shipborne missiles systems being overwhelmed by numbers. Remember, nobody has yet managed to solve the problem of reloading vertically launched missiles as sea.
Air threats: The carrier can launch aircraft that can detect hostile aircraft far beyond the radar horizon of any surface warship, defeat low fliers attempting to hide behind the horizon, visually identify aircraft, and engage them before they get close enough to friendly vessels to fire a salvo of anti ship missiles. They can also splash missiles once launched, reducing the danger of ship based defences being overwhelmed by numbers. The carrier can carry fighters close to forces or shipping being protected and provide a 24/7 CAP or more, regardless of the distance from friendly air bases. You can demonstrate mathematically that you can achieve the same level of defence with a significantly smaller number of fighters based aboard a carrier 100nm away from the CAP station than you would with jets based 200nm or 300nm away.
Submarine threats: The carrier provides the means to deploy a number of ASW helicopters that are collocated for ease of coordination, logistics, and maintenance, and of course a larger deck provides the ability to launch and recover aircraft in worse weather than smaller ships. Some submarines carry anti ship missiles - these can be engaged with modern AAMs and the targeting platforms for long range ones can be engaged.
Land based threats: Again missiles can be detected and engaged, as proven recently by the Americans in the Red Sea, and potentially launch sites can be attacked.
Power Projection includes the use (or threatened use) of airpower against targets ashore - again Little's Theorem applies and there is value is launching from near the target in terms of things like sortie rate, and of course there is the political issue of not relying on a host nation and relying on them agreeing to use their bases and airspace. Power Projection also covers things such amphibious capabilities - which demand a large degree of Sea Control, and some writers consider moving military equipment by sea to count as power projection. This is why the term Carrier Enabled Power Projection is used, and presumably why Not_a_boffin keeps waving a collection of birch sticks at me. He has pointed out that the defence of a task group (or forces ashore) was part of the CVF requirement.
Originally Posted by
SLXOwft
At the risk of prolixity I will throw in another few penn'orth on why the UK carriers are IMO a good thing and why more money needs to be spend on equipping them with the range of tools they need. I accept there are some who will never be convinced its money well spent.
Among other things having aircraft carriers enables the UK to:
- Project hard power globally especially in areas where permission to use land bases isn't forthcoming or is conditional. This applies both to airpower and the delivery of land forces .
- There are strong arguments that in the current geopolitical climate WEBF's Sea Control mission is as important today as it was 50 years ago and not just in the North Atlantic.
- An independent carrier force provides influence with US politicians as it shows that at least one European country is prepared to put money in forces that can be effective outside the continent.
- Project soft power
- Leverage the development of UCAVs, USuVs, and UUVs to use them effectively away from fixed bases.
It is perhaps instructive that the most visible demonstration of China's strategy since the beginning of the Century has been a concentration on Sea Control as it pushes to displace its neighbours from their legitimate interests in the South China Sea and beyond. It is only by the US, UK and others demonstrating their own Sea Control abilities that it can be opposed peacefully.
Sea Control and Power Projection are related and often conflated. However, if an adversary is able to deny you use of the sea, you will not be projecting power in any way, shape, or form. With the re-emergence of conventional state versus competition and conflict, the seas and the airspace above them are once again contested. For example, the level of Russian submarine activity in the Atlantic is high and for the last few years NATO has considered the Atlantic to be contested.
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Those are valid points - and , in a perfect world, or with a Government that led rather than followed public opinion, carriers are a useful option. However given the resources available, and likely to be available, they're an expensive distraction.
Why do you think NATO considers the carrier to be of extreme importance and aside from Britain, France, Italy, and Spain all have a carrier capability? Could it be that the carrier is particularly suited to the geography of the Euro-Atlantic? For example, how else would you intercept a potentially hostile aircraft at a range of several hundred miles AND carry enough ASW helicopters for constant ASW operations?