Sorry but I wasn't being flippant, I had to go off and that was the only quick response I could come up with.
Most nations in the world have coasts. Most have aircraft, many with anti ship capabilities. Many have regimes that are potentially hostile to the UK - for all sorts of reasons. Many have neighbours that would be unwilling to assist the UK.
Therefore it could happen. Some scenarios:
1. If during an operation like our involvement in Sierra Leone, one of the neighbouring governments had been on the rebels side, or at least was violently opposed to the presence of UK forces, they may have sought to use a few aircraft to harass or attack our ships, or more likely, our helicopters.
Oddly enough, the recent paper on defence (cuts) includes an
African Scenario.
2. I refer to the following scenario which I first put on page 16 of this thread...
It is possible, is it not, that a scenario could arise where a certain regime (lets refer to them as nation X) decides that it wants to attack UK interests (either to gain "street cred" with its supporters or other regimes, or for other reasons) by attacking or harassing UK merchant shipping. For the moment lets make a number of assumptions.....
a. Nation X is somewhere in Africa, Asia or the Middle East, geography means that they are no established friendly air bases that could be easily used.
b. Nation X has Nations Y and Z as its neighbours, but they do not want to get involved in X's argument with the UK.
c. Nation X does not wish to interfere with US flagged vessels so as not to provoke Washington.
d. Nation X has a small Navy, and a small to medium sized air force with MiGs (various types) and helicopters. Some of these aircraft can fire air launched anti ship missiles (a capability that many nations have with Russia and China exporting missiles).
X harasses UK registered shipping to prevent it going through a certain area, and harasses vessels with missile boats etc. To defend UK vessels, HM Government decides to deploy frigates and destroyers, together with supporting RFAs, to area. X then says British warships will be attacked. An assessment of X's air strength concludes that X has the ability to project air power over the area of interest, and could overwhelm or evade ship based defences. Can we still deploy? Imagine the disaster if things go wrong....
If on the other hand, a CVS can be dispatched along with Sea Harriers, the defence of the UK forces in hugely improved and we can deploy our warships to protect our (civilian) shipping. Better still, the existence of this capability may well act as a deterrent and prevent the scenario from ever occurring. By providing this sort of force protection the Sea Harrier acts as a force multiplier and greatly enhances the capability of our naval forces. It also allows us to deal with the situation without escalating things by using offensive weapons.
Contrary to popular belief, the number of UK registered merchant vessels has increased in the last few years, and continues to rise. This
link gives more info on the Navy's responsibility to protect shipping. At least the first few paragraphs do.
3. The Falklands. Again. The reduction on frigate and destroyer numbers, means, according to CINCFLEET, that at least two routine tasks will have to be abandoned. It seems likely that
Atlantic Patrol Task - South will be done away with. Other reductions, in Tornado F3 and Infantry numbers may mean the entire Falklands garrison my be withdrawn. With continuing political problems in Argentina, the Malvinas may look like an attractive option for a desperate leadership. If the Falklands were worth defending in WWI and WWII and fighting over in 1982, they are worth protecting now.
And some multi national scenarios:
4. A CVS full of Harrier GR9s is involved in operations alongside several US carrier groups. The CVS is some distance away from the US carriers. The enemy wishes to damage or sink a carrier or other large vessel for the political capital. Do they attack the US carriers, defended by many escorts, and Super Hornets with AMRAAM etc, or our little carrier, with only a few escorting ships and no fighters?
5. An amphibious operation like the one just practised of the US coast. Given the limited size or our present carriers, a few strike aircraft will not be much of a contribution, being able to put x thousand troops ashore with their weapons, supplies, vehicles and helicopters, with minimal support from US forces, probably would.
The 1998 Strategic Defence Review recognised the importance of carriers. So WHY CAN'T YOU AS YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS?