Originally Posted by Jackonicko
Nice line SASless, but utter bollocks.
So: No, the studies I've seen have been from BAE and the Typhoon joint structures team.
Who had bug.ger all to do with Boeing's Chinook disaster, the AAC's inability to plan properly for Apache, or the cost-driven proposal to omit Typhoon's gun on RAF aircraft.
Bismarck.
The UK didn't need carriers to mount a post 9/11 attack on Afghanistan, because we weren't heavily involved in that dodgy piece of adventurism. And hey, we had an ally ready and able to provide the carrier air power required.
And when the Americans went in, they weren't calling on the UK for carrier support, the UK capabilities they really wanted (and that made us a useful partner) were SF, tankers, R1s and PR9s. They gave us real influence, while Illustrious was an irrelevance - useful only in that it provided a visible proof that we were participating.
Generally speaking, if HNS isn't available, it tends to be because the proposed op is politically unsustainable or unwise.
In any event, B-2s were not the only available option for delivering ordnance, as you'd know if you looked at Diego Garcia, or remembered TLAM, CALCM, Storm Shadow, etc.
And it's my understanding that HNS was offered by a number of nearby nations, including (but not limited to) the 'northern 'stans', while the CV based air power required overflight permissions to do their job.
And if we had to repeat a Falklands type scenario and dip clearences weren't forth comming then without carriers we would be well stuffed. I know the arguments Uncle Sam will always provide (when it suits him)