PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - CVF
Thread: CVF
View Single Post
Old 6th Mar 2008, 09:10
  #28 (permalink)  
Magic Mushroom
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh FFS children!

It is fair to say that carriers have not been essential to any of our ops since 1982. People can bang on about HNS but this has not been a show stopper in practice. However, carriers have been exceptionally useful in many ops and particularly during the Balkans where carrier assets sometimes allowed air to be maintained over B-H when all the Italian bases were red.

Tell that to the team on Invincible in GW2 operating day and night sorties of 4 GR7 and 4 FA2s.
Either that is a big wah Navaleye or you need to get your facts straight. No fixed wing operated off the CVS during GW2. It was used purely in the LPH role for the Cdo Bde insertion on Al Faw via Chinooks and SK4 with Lynx and ASaC support. The FA2s did not fly in the op although RAF GR7s flew CAS/interdiction from a, err, 'friendly' nation.

The use of the CVS in this role is probably a useful microcosm of how we've used our carrier assets since 82. The assets could easily have been disembarked to a shore location and the op staged from there. However, having the CVS was exceptionally useful and prevented a complex and time consuming logs move ashore. In addition, the ability of a carrier to move rapidly (or as rapidly as a boat can) from a position elsewhere can mask our intentions better than a move ashore which would have taken several days. A CVF would have been even more useful in this role and would probably have had the capacity to maintain fixed wing ops as well.

...however the USN carry out significant operations from their carriers into present theatres (mainly due to their organic tankers) and the ability to project such power without host nation support is the pinnacle of flexible air power.
Incorrect. The USN's organic carriers do very little other than offer an ability to top up one or 2 assets within a few hundred miles of mother. They are certainly unable to 'project' any meaningfully sized package. Even when the USN had a decent organic tanker in the shape of the KA-3D Whale that capability was limited. As their AAR moved onto the KA-6D, S-3B and now the FA-18E, the organic tanker has slowly become even more limited. Therefore, even USN CVNs rely almost exclusively on land based AAR (as well as ISTAR etc) support from the USAF and RAF. Even in the early days of Afghanistan, US carrier assets regularly employed land based FOBs to turn in another, err, 'friendly' nation.

Before all you carrier dudes start screaming 'biased crab', let me offer some balance. The Falklands is often used by both sides to justify/question carriers. Those for mention the use of carriers in the initial war whilst those against point out the fact we now have MPA. However, look at it from the Argies perspective. MPA is arguably our CoG down there. So what happens if they do an 'Op MIKADO' and manage to stick 2 x C-130 (or an 'airliner full of 'relatives on a pilgrimage to the Argie war graves' that are actually SF) onto the runway? Without a runway they could reinforce via surface means, clear the runway and set up shop again. Without a carrier we could do very little about it. However, with CVF en route they'd know we could still come down and kick them out. That's undoubtedly an unlikely scenario today, but will it be over the next 30-50 years? Most importantly, it illustrates the point that everyone should be recognising namely:

LAND BASED AND MARITIME AIR POWER IS COMPLEMENTARY FFS!!!!!!!

In summary, land based and maritime air power each have their pros and cons. I don't think carriers are essential and those who describe CVF as being the 'cornerstone' of UK defence for the next 50 years are imho exaggerating. Is it ‘highly desirable’ enough a capability to push through? Personally, I think so and I think CVF/JCA will offer an exceptionally versatile and flexible capability that we need and should be funded.

My worry however is that the RN have prostituted their future on CVF and the SSBNs and that the latter in particular will compromise their wider conventional capabilities.

Now, everyone stop arguing or they’ll be no pudding for any of you…

Regards,
MM
Magic Mushroom is offline