Bismark,
…CVF will give the government a day 1 capability, at a high sortie generation rate regardless of HNS…
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the scenario. Given that the UK will only ever have one CVF at sea, it could be argued that there is a fair chance it may not be at the right place at the right time. We certainly won’t have the luxury of the USN in being able to maintain carriers spread around the world. Obviously that can sometimes work to our advantage, as in the Falklands War where the inexorable transit south of the Task Force gradually ratcheted up the pressure on Galtieri and his hoods.
Also, HNS/overflight also applies to maritime aviation at times. In the Afghan ops, carrier assets from both the US and France have used land FOBs on a regular basis and still require overflight rights from specific nations.
…whereas it could take weeks to build up to a 36 a/c DOB especially if strat/tac air is also supporting a land force build up at the same time.
RAF E-3Ds flew their first missions over Afghanistan from a ME nation within 36 hrs of the order to deploy from the UK. Other RAF ISTAR and tanker assets were doing likewise. RAF Tornado F3s were flying DCA over Saudi within a similar timescale in Aug 90 as were USAF F-15Cs.
…What does it cost (in terms of strat and tac air transport, shipping etc) to deploy 36 multi-role jets for, say, 20 days high intensity warfighting?
Similar logistics are applicable for carrier assets. You still have to be resupplied with weapons and fuel. RFA can do some of this but not all. Often a single C-130 or C-17 delivering our pre-packed Fly Away Packs can be sufficient to get a det operational and flying it’s first missions. Multi engined and rotary types can often self deploy all the elements required for austere ops. We’re pretty good at getting set up and going quickly from a bare base these days. Swings and roundabouts.
Particulalry if they have to move DOBs before the fighting starts. And have we ever done so?
Yes.
…I am too far removed from the Service to know these things.
Agreed.
Widger,
If CVF had been around in 82, then there would have been no loss of Sheffield or loss of life in Bluff Cove...
Agreed.
Sierra Leone would have been a breeze, Deny Flight in Bosnia would have had a massive boost and as to the last 2 Gulf Crises..........
Err, why would Sierra Leone have been a breeze with CVF other than we could have done it from a single hull rather than requiring a CVS and Ocean? In fact, while we’re at it, one of the most useful aspects of CVF would have been its ability to host a modest Joint HQ structure. Unfortunately, we’ve chopped the ops room requirement!!!
As far as the Balkans go, I flew through the entirety of the Croatia, B-H, Albanian and Kosovo campaigns and there were very few times when there was not at least 2 carriers in the Adriatic. These would be a combination of USN and French conventional carriers, USN LPDs and RN CVS. Very occasionally the Spanish or Italians would also pitch up with one of their STOVL carriers. During major ops or periods of tension it was common to have up to 5 carriers including 2 US CVNs off Jugoslavia or Albania.
Yes they helped ease the workload on the land based assets. Yes they helped when the whole of Italy went red (equally I can remember several occasions when the Adriatic went red and F-14s, FA-18s, EA-6Bs and SUEs were spread all over Italy). But they didn’t introduce a stellar change in how the ops evolved. (To be honest, we would dread the arrival of a USN CVN due to their tendency to become the largest threat to flight safety in the Northern Hemisphere…ooops, sorry, irrelevant thread creep!).
The same argument goes for GW1 and its sequel.
SaN,
I'm not up to speed on the projected split of F35's between the FAA and RAF, or if all F35's will be lumped into one "Joint force" as present? However I'd suggest that not having dedicated squadrons under RN command would be a serious error.
As has already been intimated, a CAG will normally be allocated to the Air Component Commander who answers to the Joint Commander. The ACC would most likely be a coalition AF guy, but could equally be a naval (or indeed Army
) aviator. (Incidentally, I am a strong proponent of retaining an independent organic naval and army aviation.)
So once again chaps we return to the age old argument: land based and maritime air are complimentary.
Regards,
MM