Originally Posted by
Asturias56
"The debate over the viability of carriers has probably changed since the advent of AIM-174 long range AAM (and it can kill pretty much everything else apart from a submerged submarine) several weeks ago, and recent events have proved the anti ship missiles are not the undefeatable killer some people think they are."
I can remember people said the same thing about Sea Wolf when it was introduced
Sea Wolf was never anything other than a point defence system. It could provide extended point defence if in close proximity to another ship, but it was always intended to be part of a layered defence starting with fighters, medium range SAMs (Sea Dart in the RN's case), and then Sea Wolf and decoys/close range guns.
This 1977 training film explains it perfectly: PRINCIPLES OF ANTI AIR WARFARE (IWM Collections)
The AIM-174B will give the US Navy a weapon with a far greater range than AMRAAM. Meteor will provide provide a long range capability for the UK F-35B Lightning. In the words of the film: Use your defensive capability - fast.
Originally Posted by
Asturias56
Max Hastings in today's "Times" - I'm not quite sure who would buy them - maybe the USMC
Finally, even with the fair wind blowing for the new British government, there is our own politics. If the Robertson review makes radical proposals, how far can these be implemented in the face of domestic pressures?
For instance: the two giant aircraft-carriers that our admirals insisted upon, and which Gordon Brown commissioned to provide employment in Scottish Labour constituencies, have proved an embarrassment. The misbegotten “Pacific tilt” in the 2019 defence review was conceived simply to justify these behemoths. We cannot afford a credible force of F-35s to fly off them. Manning has proved a nightmare. The ships are often broken. At a time when we need a larger fleet of smaller vessels, they consume a giant share of the Navy’s budget. We would be better off without them.
But does Starmer have the bottle to sell the carriers, which would prompt jingo outrage? I doubt it. Moreover, when Labour is seeking to market defence spending as an engine for growth, will it recognise that not only is our procurement system broken, but our domestic weapons manufacturers, notably BAE, have a lamentable record, especially as warship builders?
What a load of crap!
Admirals insisted upon? Presumably he means Admirals that were running the Royal Navy at a time when carriers were at the heart of ongoing operation in the Adriatic or the Persian/Arabian Gulf, had held commands during the 1980s when carriers were at the heart of NATO's naval capability, and many had experienced combat in the Falklands?
Scottish constituencies? I am sure that most of the hull blocks were built in non Scottish yards, and the equipment that went inside the hull came from all over the UK.
Pacific Tilt? NATO first remains the centre of our policy, and we have committed the carrier capability to NATO.
Cannot afford a credible force...? What does he mean by 'credible' and why can we not afford it?
Manning a nightmare? I seem to recall Hastings as being one of the people who convinced fellow evidence averse ex public schoolboy Cameron to deny the RN a personnel uplift in 2015.
Need a larger fleet of smaller vessels: Again - what does that mean? I recall that a few years ago he was arguing that expensive destroyers and frigates were no longer needed as air and submarine threats were a thing of the past, just as he argued that Typhoon should be scrapped (without replacement) as the fighter was a relic of the past in the age of the drone.
Can he answer this question - if the task is
to protect maritime reinforcements and amphibious forces, is the force more able with or without a carrier to:
a. Detect and engage enemy aircraft armed with anti ship missiles that can be fired well beyond the limited radar horizon of surface radars?
b. Maintain a constant CAP several hundred miles or more from the nearest friendly airbase, without needing large numbers of fighters and tankers?
c. Maintain constant ASW helicopter operations without coordination, communications, or logistics/support difficulties?
Can he disprove the following?
The carrier puts fighters in close proximity to the assets or area to be defended without needing an excessive number of aircraft, and Geography, Mathematics, and Physics show that attacking aircraft carrying anti ship missiles are best dealt with using fighters to kill the archers, not the arrows. Airborne radar can see far beyond the radar horizon of shipborne ones and can detect low altitude targets at range, and fighters provide the means for interception and visual identification beyond the horizon, and engagement far beyond the range of shipborne missile systems. Constant ASW helicopter operations are best supported by a large deck with multiple helicopters, as collocating them simplifies coordination, communications, and maintenance and support.
From the conclusions of the discussion about the role of the carrier in sea control - on another site.
Some people have noted that Hastings is a somewhat unreliable military historian who seems to dislike out own forces compared to those of the Wehrmacht. His contemporary writings tend to be biased towards the Army, which makes me wonder why he does not raise the issues of things like Ajax?
Perhaps the problem is that the education system of the day meant that he probably did not Maths or Science after the age of fourteen, so he may have little understanding of speed/time/distance relationships, the relationship between system range and defended area, radio/radar basics, the trade off between sensor range and resolution, probability...etc.