Having read this thread on and off for a while (and dropped a few light hearted comments on the way), I just wanted to give my tuppence worth.
We need the two aircraft carriers now more than we have done for years, and certainly more than we have done since the Wall came down. The rest of the world is tooling up, with everyone from India to Thailand getting in on the act. Other countries are also building as fast as they can; even Australia is getting back “in the groove”.
Two sites of interest are
WorldWideAircraftCarriers.com - Home Page (remember this list is growing), and Asia bent on acquiring aircraft carriers - upiasia.com ( a very informed and accurate analysis)
Yes, I know the definition of an aircraft carrier versus an amphibious assault carrier, versus a helicopter cruiser, etc, etc; but that didn’t stop us from quite successfully operating tiny little flat tops in a multitude of roles, did it? The difference now is that there are a lot more “players” in the game, and these guys are willing to spend big bucks to buy the best ships for themselves. In order to “protect and project”, we need to provide our navy with the tools they need to do the job, any job they may be asked to do. Don’t forget we are an island with responsibility for protectorates and peoples world wide, without the Royal Navy to help police OUR responsibilities it doesn’t matter how good your Army or your Air Force is. (you can move Australia on a map to prove CAP capability, but not in real life.).
These ships have already been paid for by early decommissioning of other vessels, reduced buys of new assets, and goodness knows what other cuts to the Navy’s budget. If you must complain about a waste of what is actually “not a lot” of money for a lot of weapon, then think about how it stacks up against other procurements, and how much they offer in return! If that still doesn’t convince you, then think of how much the Olympics will cost; could that have been staged as the “austere” Olympics, utilising existing sporting venues and facilities? Nowhere other than London will see any major income from the Olympics (so what if the sailing is at Portland), and we’ll all be paying for it years later and wondering if it was worth it.
When a carrier group hauls refugees out of a war zone, or captures a pirate ship, or launches aircraft to support a ground engagement, you know it’s worth it.
I’ve worked with the RAF on board, and they’re not a bad bunch (those moustaches are a bad idea on “up channel” night though), but if you think that a squadron can just embark, play at flying their petrol pigeons and then disembark, you are wrong. The RAF top brass reckon they can do just that and there is no need for a “Fleet Air Arm”, that just goes to show how out of touch they are with reality (the last “head honcho” anyway).
The FAA are sailors first, then aircraft operators. They all know how to use submersible pumps, how to do a four man re-entry and what a “gunter baton” is for (measuring). When embarked, the air group are part of the ships company, not passengers, (although trying to get the fish heads to understand the WAFUS work defence watches ALL the time is often fruitless), as such they are fully integrated into the ship’s manpower scheme. If you are going to train (and keep current) RAF men to do the same thing then why not permanently attach them to sea duties and call them something appropriate, like, hey! I know; the Fleet Air Arm (of the RAF). Too long? How about just the “Fleet Air Arm”.
The penny pinchers have already nearly killed the Harrier (thanks to clever “timber shifting” by the RAF), lets get the ships, get the new jet (before we lose the knowledge to operate it) and let the Navy and any other UK force who need a mobile airfield do their job. They are UK assets, not just RN!
Rant over, Cheers