Originally Posted by
WE Branch Fanatic
Logic - what logic? The argument that carriers already based in the European area are important because they are able to rapidly deploy to places such as the Norwegian Sea is very similar to the argument for deploying a carrier as part of your naval forces.
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...
This is of course of from conclusion B on the carrier/sea control thread, and part of my list of specific posts.
1, 2, 21, 24, and 30 address your idea with respect to embarked jets, 1, 3, 14, 16, 17, and 30 address your point with respect to ASW helicopters (which cannot sensibly be operated from a distant airfield due to their shorter range and lower speed).
Er, a lot of those "assets" are actual airfields...