Apparently I haven't written anything on PPRuNe for over a month but this thread seems like a good place to have a little post.
Jacko
5) Aircraft carriers are by no means 'self contained' - they require AD frigates, an SSN, tankers, RFAs, etc. - a small Armada.
Do they? Are the frigates, submarines and RFA attached to the carrier? Do they have no roles except supporting a carrier? The level of escort a carrier has depends on the threat. Funnily enough ships get sent to trouble spots even if there is no carrier there. Even if they are attached to a carrier group, they can be detached and act independently. Even in the Falklands ships were detached from the main task force for other tasks. There are no dedicated ships to support carriers than can do nothing else. I believe that the escort to the CVS in the Adriatic in the 90s was a single frigate. There were others but they were enforcing an arms embargo.
When the threat is high enough to warrant lots of escorts then the situation would demand lots of escorts anyway. How many frigates/destroyers did we have in the Gulf in 1991? No CVS there.
Submarines can operate with a carrier, or they can act independently. Since you need naval forces you need RFAs.
Your argument, previously seen on the
Sea Jet and
Future Carrier threads, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The levels of frigates/destroyers, and submarines are set by Ministers. CVF will be part of the Fleet, some of you seem to think a new fleet of vessels will be needed to support them.
Soddim
Yes, Not a Boffin, you are quite right, the carriers in a benign air defence environment are a very good way of (slowly) deploying a respectable force and projecting power over long distance.
However, why are we spending such a large slice of our budget on a force incapable of defending itself in a hostile air environment?
Some Navies have carrier based fighters (ours used to) to defend the fleet, particularly high value assets (yes, there are high value assets other than carriers - like amphibious forces and certain merchant vessels) so they can. They also provide an outer layer of defence in addition to shipborne missiles.
Unfortunately, although we live in a relatively threat-free period at least in terms of military threats, intentions can and do change quicker than we can change capabilities. There are too many potentially hostile nations with force levels we could not contend with at present. Although in the past we have generated improved capabilities quickly in time of tension, modern technologies and the ability to use them preclude the rapid expansion that our small force would need.
Better get the carriers then!
Fortunately, there was no combat as the Argies were too busy concentrating on ground and ship attack to bring air-to-air weapons along but what a different story it would have been if they had.
There was me thinking the Argentines lost the war as they ran out of aircraft before we ran out of ships, and the carriers and landing forces were successfully defended, including by Sea Harriers. No combat? What about the 23 kills achieved by 800 and 801? Attacking ships was Argentina's best hope for winning the war and they were ordered to avoid confrontations with the Sea Harrier. And what makes you think the Sea Harrier would have lost if it had?
Your claiming if they had used air to air weapons instead of anti ship ones the carriers would have been a higher risk?
Lots of spin and half truths here.