Originally Posted by
Asturias56
So why are they still cutting things pray?
and I don't think everyone has signed up to the idea that cutting amphibious support is a Good Thing
Not so many weeks ago we were involved with the Netherlands in designing the landing platforms of the future, but I think that our participation went South due to founding issues.
There is an another issue - even with lots of frigates (and destroyers) protecting amphibious forces and reinforcement shipping without carriers and their aircraft is going to be a very hard nut to crack. You cannot replicate the long range, ability to visually identify unidentified aircraft, or defence in depth with shipborne radars and missiles.
The possibility of creating a viable fleet without carriers had been examined in 1962 for comparison with the arguments in favour of CVA-01. The study group had reported that such a fleet would be very expensive to create and very limited in capability. Without AEW aircraft, the fleet’s antiaircraft missiles would be limited to engagements within the ships’ radar ‘line of sight’, making them particularly vulnerable to pop-up low-level attacks under the radar horizon. The fleet would have no defence against shadowing aircraft that remained outside missile range, and would be unable to destroy missile-firing aircraft before they launched their weapons. Sea search and probe missions like those that initiated the Beira Patrol would no longer be possible beyond the helicopters’ radius of action. A surface-to-surface missile (SSM) would have to be developed or procured to replace strike aircraft in the anti-surface-vessel role, but even this would be of limited value without AEW aircraft to provide targeting information.
From
British Aircraft Carrier - Design, Development and Service Histories by Cdr David Hobbs RN (Rtd) -
a PDF version is here.
Similarly you need a lot of frigates to support the same number of ASW helicopters as a carrier will operate - and even if the frigates and sailors to man them existed there are difficulties in coordinating aircraft based aboard different frigates, and you cannot centralise things like maintenance and logistics.
These are the reasons that carriers are so important to NATO, are important in dealing with anti ship attacks in the Red Sea, and the major navies with a main role of Sea Control seek to either have them or at least operate with allied ones.
Over on the thread I started about the how and why
carriers needed are in the Atlantic (and elsewhere of course) for Air Defence and ASW on another site, I posed a question before the recent Exercise
Steadfast Defender 24 - could anyone suggest a better alternative to what HMS
Prince of Wales did?
Constant protection of the amphibious force? No - that is a carrier role. The carrier provides presence and proximity.
Timely interception of simulated hostile aircraft, such as launching jets from inside the fjord? No - speed/time/distance considerations favour having your aircraft nearer both the attacking aircraft and the force to be defended.
Constant ASW? No - you would need a lot of frigates (or other warships/auxiliaries) to operate the same number of ASW helicopters as a carrier, and support and coordination would be difficult.