PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Which Defence Secretary was the worst?
View Single Post
Old 27th May 2002, 08:44
  #18 (permalink)  
Jimlad
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dispossed/ dispossed - its all the same to me after a few pints

RN - it was heavily cut post Sandys, they lost most of the trash that had been hanging round after the war, all the reserve units went, the battleships went and frankly a lot of the hangers on went. To say that the RN was left bloated is frankly untrue - it suffered major cuts. It seems to me that people are more jealous that mountbatten got his case together than any rational reason, judging by some of the comments against him.

The problem on this board is that some people seem to nurse an irrational hatred of all things carrier related and that is something I fail to understand. In my simple matelot like mind I see carriers as nothing more than a floating airbase pure and simple. Yes they carry a lot of crew but thats a generational thing - they were designed inthe 1960's so reflect the practices of the times. If you look at modern warship design crew numbers have been cut considerably since the war- the new Type 45 class will have a crew of 150- 180.
Secondly Carriers are great to provide air defence for the fleet - not just themselves. Yes theoretically the RAF could provide assests for A/D but it would take a massive effort to constantly keep an A/D CAP over the fleet + AEW + tanker support. I'd hazard a guess that if we were doing another falklands style op then it would tie up most of our resources just to provide a two plane CAP 24/7 with AEW cover. Carriers allow you to go away and do that self sufficiently - we don't need outside support as we take it with us, we can do AEw so your precious sentrys can stay at Waddington and we can handle our own air defence. The best bit is that we can get GR7/9's oboard for bombing as well.

Yes I'm sure the Jaguar could deploy easily, but that assumes that a base will always be available. In my opinion the events post 9/11 show that bases won't always be there and that investing in carriers will ensure a decent power projection capability that is not tied to a foreign airfield. Its far more flexible as the enemy don't know where it is and it can move close to other hot spots while the Jag force is waiting for political clearance to go to another country.

Don't get me wrong - carriers are not the be all / end all of aviation but they perfrom a very useful fire fighting role by getting a complete air package to an area very quickly without reference to foreign powers. They can hold the line till the Jags / Tornadoes turn up.

The sooner some of the dinosaurs on this board realise carriers are here to stay and that they are a joint force asset the better.
Jimlad is offline